Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52657 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 76079 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2011 11:48:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Jun 2011 11:48:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.82.54 mail-ww0-f54.google.com Received: from [74.125.82.54] ([74.125.82.54:46806] helo=mail-ww0-f54.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A9/92-61684-61726ED4 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:48:39 -0400 Received: by wwd20 with SMTP id 20so5599110wwd.11 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:48:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=APO98QnJs3Y6SAGaMb4PauaK65uwZHHgH7Fuuwk0BmE=; b=K9ZN6uhao4z8oxLCRwfw4jNraf0uPMmE1Gku/4FhdosN3sMdKCqkhL9f6AnXU7j5cw oVay8cCTBweM/NUFO//MMD84VBVXJcsQlnjtJkla79JMEpaCoEhke1d1Kpt7ZlMc/FS2 ohET05TNZmq8qtzoneYFMBoOfaHLVkExjkB1I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=JPLLZOSvuBTqtqbFZiGMa6eSrOoMRyR5Dftxruwm6iOSgUGk8XknN3n/MTD2TypqOn bm7Nd/sIRMgF5722EABx7CjUSo0HzsuB5DpJCHYOLXRsPD6+c8Uu7dwb3JDtgqL+w46Z tuxf8o/uJrK18t2znKSTu5jpOdkWTqx/uXFyo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.236.208 with SMTP id w58mr4654083weq.62.1306928916149; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.253.168 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:48:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:48:36 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ilia Alshanetsky Cc: Derick Rethans , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Final version, RFC release process From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >> This variant is not workable, because there are (in the example) in 2014 >> *five* branches. Merging between those, manually and automatically is >> going to be a major pain. I'd say we all rather want to focus our time >> on fixes and new features; and not spend more time doing branch merging, >> whatever tool we use for this. > > This is similar to my initial point about the proposal. We need to > figure out a way to have fewer active bug-fix branches, just because > it make dev live very difficult. Derick I am not sure your example is > much better, since you still have 4 active branches (if I am reading > the diagram correctly). I think 3 active bug fix branches, with maybe > 1 security fixes only branches is the most we should have. yes, and we can adapt that in time and when necessary. The core of this RFC however is still valid and is a very good step forward for our project (that's for Derick's reply). Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org