Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:51931
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.211.66 cause and error)
To: Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>
Cc: internals Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=9yuV8iZ+-66-YNEkO06N_O38gxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=9yuV8iZ+-66-YNEkO06N_O38gxA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:09:52 +0200
Message-ID: <1303142992.7048.76.camel@guybrush>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Releases, trunk, policy and the wardrobe (Was: Re:
 [PHP-DEV] RFC: built-in web server in CLI.)
From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)

+10000

Only thing for trunk to be done besides stabilization and such is
agreeing on the type hint stuff (and if we can't agree at least agree to
disagree for the moment and get the release out of the door). Currently
we still have the language extension which looks like another syntax but
does nothing in the tree. ('function foo(int $a) { var_dump($a); }
foo("string");' is valid code printing string(6) "string")

johannes

On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 23:25 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
> On 17 April 2011 07:17, Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org> wrote:
> > Are people still thinking about this? And how about applying the current/revised patch to trunk thus making it easier to play with and break, but not freeze its features/API yet.
> 
> As much as I like this idea — and I really, genuinely,
> enthusiastically* do — allow me to open the can of worms and repeat a
> question I've asked periodically on IRC and IRL (with varying levels
> of directness) over the last few months:
> 
> Is there any thought that we might stop throwing things into trunk
> soon and start thinking about some sort of release?
> 
> 5.3.0 came out in June 2009. Even if we start the alpha process now,
> there's no chance trunk is going to hit stable until the last few
> months of the year, so we're looking at over two years between minor
> releases, which is about as long as I'd be comfortable leaving it —
> not just for any PR reason, but because there's some genuinely good
> stuff in trunk that I think deserves to see the light of day.
> 
> I mean, if people want to continue experimenting, that's great, but
> should we be factoring this into the thought process, at least?
> There's nothing stopping a 5.4 branch being created earlier than has
> been traditional (say, alpha 1 or beta 1) and letting development
> continue on trunk. In effect, we'd simply be reverting to the three
> branch model that's existed for most of the last few years.
> 
> Sorry to hijack the thread, but I think the question needs to be asked.
> 
> Anviliciously yours,
> 
> Adam
> 
> * You can insert more adverbs if you like. I am very +1 on this
> feature. I use the equivalent feature provided by Django for
> development all the time, and it's amazingly handy.
>