Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52750
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;
        b=niwdVxE5yc4sy4hCq7rFSB3CLyRt+n5zDvfmwvviMEtchy1SJtnnI5KtjGFhyh90ae
         vG4wO4f3ReGoW5/3Qc+P2Vq1IWR0a8tPy32Xf8mYtxA1ZU7a3hqDHzGD9sL1qe78EEO8
         dZsDnX4fz9ODOlIKgyMGn6pZ+efudU4mcKB2A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimrNwFO7=svkN=L3qon45fUyLnLzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTim2Tbw+9egfrmrYfeZfNNwYWcg4dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DE6BE66.3070007@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTinAaFn=-UY2AXFhKZQ6fqqWZz92AQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim5n6ekS++GX2r9VKV-tf7221oC_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinzrcHTB7yXdcrKG-9U6J_9xMw52Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimrNwFO7=svkN=L3qon45fUyLnLzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:40:46 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimsbDQ_dvom0BH_7UFVraf7ygS1EQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher Jones <christopher.jones@oracle.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
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 Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 10:23, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com> 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".

No, it is the same that what we proposed. What we proposed is that
every release is actually a LTS release. What Ubuntu uses works fine
for distros given that it is a distro with an insane amount of totally
unrelated projects they distribute, and alternative repositories exist
for almost each of them.

For a programming language, it is a totally different story.

for ref: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org