Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52673
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
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:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=DYuX53ma5FmdiMzo6DCSTo3pvkZ51TpA+VVNJ/I7mLu1G4D+jI9/QqBkwJJUhGDk3k
         7w1wF+e42ZtX+TkyGmR5FwimmKVyRZ2/Ywf/9tggiDkYxZNoP/OMgTNuLx5OFQyzF9GY
         a+Ftzsi4BevtYN90OkQm0GELkqmj04i7KDRLY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1306932263.1952.112.camel@guybrush>
References: <BANLkTim2Tbw+9egfrmrYfeZfNNwYWcg4dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1106011230270.9040@whisky>
	<BANLkTinC-yoaaGN0V-eeTgeAD9Hm8Qarcw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1306932263.1952.112.camel@guybrush>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:44:54 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimKFHuOspMz0RKQQtgivhjYDQDjfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>
Cc: Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Final version, RFC release process
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi,


2011/6/1 Johannes Schl=FCter <johannes@schlueters.de>:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 13:45 +0200, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> > This variant is not workable, because there are (in the example) in 20=
14
>> > *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 mergin=
g,
>> > 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.
>
> I mentioned this before: I like the Ubuntu model:

> * One development branch for the next version
> * One current version
> * One "long term" supported version

I do not like it. It does not apply to a programming language and its
requirement from an end user point of view.

To have a fixed life span for each x.y (5.3, 5.4, 6.0, etc.) is a
drastic improvement for ISPs, framework developers etc.

The issue about having multiple or too many branches active is a non
problem imo. Yes, it takes a couple of hours yet to release php, but
that's something that could be automated easily (the tasks, not the
whole thing) . It will also be much safer to do it given that no fancy
commits can or should be applied in patch releases/stable branches.

In addition we are getting more and more automated testing and that
will make the release processes even smoother and safer. Unlike now
where we need months to do 5.3 patches when we should have at least .7
already and .8 being in the work.

Cheers,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org