Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52744 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74946 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 09:52:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Jun 2011 09:52:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=peter.e.lind@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=peter.e.lind@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.170 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: peter.e.lind@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.161.170 mail-gx0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.161.170] ([209.85.161.170:61859] helo=mail-gx0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 54/64-49351-35D57ED4 for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 05:52:19 -0400 Received: by gxk27 with SMTP id 27so300900gxk.29 for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:52:16 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=hBhj4CytnKICTlcnL41VhH/HzWXeHDxxOo0gGTvCdVY=; b=Rdecq4WmqmogvM+tOhihTZ1+BdFRxZpGNzVJIeWV3PoYoT+Wb5KilvIITpTXHs8qdF ZDdVKaSkIwhZweZD7b0wyMNa2RQAWmMS+sm37ivTM9Rv13aip2s+CJVf3k1BYg/gB27+ 0nX85UNmGTbuuLlpmpLRxb2+OMU83kEEPFW84= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=EegVmzMVAUsdTihWJpKf5nClzokvSHPmWWwZza76nLWnOpr4/JXUFJ3IUUcsw8tV73 7E4TvIdwfhHIpowifpJnIWQBwp8T+aKm7eunYOpi1cDL5noCYzIpjvFYBiHTu4LOukeT la8KXUvPE0FP8cqjJWbY9kpbMIYOI0d4UUFsI= Received: by 10.91.41.14 with SMTP id t14mr518384agj.27.1307008335115; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:52:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.33.19 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 02:51:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4DE6BE66.3070007@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:51:55 +0200 Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye Cc: Christopher Jones , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Final version, RFC release process From: peter.e.lind@gmail.com (Peter Lind) On 2 June 2011 10:23, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Peter Lind wrote: > >> Sorry for jumping into the thread, but I couldn't help noting that you seem >> confused about the distro suggestion. I think Ubuntu was the example, and >> there's nothing random at all about their release process. There are fixed >> timelines and life cycles in Ubuntu - having less branches does not in any >> way stop them from having a fixed release process and schedule. > > It is about "random" release being chosen as LTS. For many users, it > will preventing migration until a given feature is part of a LTS > release. > > Our proposal to have fixed life time and release cycles does not have > this random effect and each x.y release is equally supported for the > same duration. The amount of branches can be reduced easily and even > if we may have many at one point, it will be only about sec fixes, > that's really not a problem (a bit of automated tasked will help here > too). Then it's an argument about wording, not content. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases : the LTS have fixed life time and come at fixed intervals - basically exactly the same you propose with "fixed life time and release cycles". Regards Peter -- WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk LinkedIn: plind BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51 Twitter: kafe15