Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53108
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain oracle.com from 148.87.113.121 cause and error)
Message-ID: <4DED5FE8.8090805@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:16:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <4DE7F179.5010402@sugarcrm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1106030843370.9040@whisky> <4DE89534.5070206@sugarcrm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1106030920570.9040@whisky> <4DE89CD2.4040302@sugarcrm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1106030937571.9040@whisky> <4DE9AA9B.3000108@sugarcrm.com> <BANLkTinxwduQXxBoLZuFzT_Wyfy-LGC6ZA@mail.gmail.com> <slrniunu3j.dic.dsp@experimentalworks.net> <4DEC02B6.60806@sugarcrm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DEC02B6.60806@sugarcrm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward
From: christopher.jones@oracle.com (Christopher Jones)



On 06/05/2011 03:27 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:

>>>> This is a prime example of what we're talking about. Several have
>>>> expressed a desire to follow an Ubuntu style of branching instead
>>>> of the style proposed in said RFC. This is a core issue, so the
>>>> RFC is certainly not ready to adopt.
>>>>
>>>> So does this require a new RFC, or do the RFC proposers feel this
>>>> is a key concept?
>
> I think that this RFC does not contain Ubuntu-style LTS and it
> doesn't look like it's author(s) support it, so it should be some
> different point, which may be RFCed and voted on if we see
> substantial support for it.
>
> Speaking of which, I personally don't understand how LTS thing would
> work in PHP. Does it mean we'd decide out of the blue that some
> version would have extended support, upfront? Like, say, we now say
> "5.5 would have extended support"? Why would we want to do this, how
> would we know it? E.g., I understand if we had an option of
> extending support for some version post-factum, e.g., somewhere in
> 2015 we'd say "5.4 is so damn good and 5.5 has so many substantial
> changes that now we want 5.4 support to be extended another couple
> of years, and we feel we have people that are willing to do it". We
> could then talk on it and decide it, nothing prevents it. But as I
> understand LTS model means we'd have to decide it now, in 2011, and
> I don't see how it works.  Could some of the proponents on this
> model explain it?

The trunk development and the branching policy & process isn't
adequately captured in the RFC.  This is a gray area that should be
included.

It's a pity little of the mail list discussion seems to have been
merged back to the RFC as clarifications, or in a comment & answer
section.

Chris

-- 
Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com
Tel:  +1 650 506 8630
Blog:  http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/