Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55010 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45594 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2011 07:48:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Aug 2011 07:48:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.210.43 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.210.43 mail-pz0-f43.google.com Received: from [209.85.210.43] ([209.85.210.43:56487] helo=mail-pz0-f43.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CF/85-05523-6544B5E4 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 03:48:38 -0400 Received: by pzk1 with SMTP id 1so8522595pzk.2 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.215.4 with SMTP id n4mr2450837wfg.187.1314604115369; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] ([75.51.73.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a7sm17410716pbr.2.2011.08.29.00.48.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E5B444F.8020402@lerdorf.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:48:31 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nathaniel Catchpole CC: Stas Malyshev , PHP Internals References: <4E5B24DD.10903@sugarcrm.com> <4E5B2C49.3030303@lerdorf.com> <4E5B3E8C.1040308@sugarcrm.com> <4E5B423A.1080007@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 beta From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) Sure, and I mentioned that initially. But we at least need to look at each failing test and make a determination before blindly pushing out a beta. I have fixed a couple of easily fixable tests in the past couple of days that anybody who looked at them could have fixed. -Rasmus On 08/29/2011 12:42 AM, Nathaniel Catchpole wrote: > Unless test failures are critical, it seems worth either commenting out > or converting to xfail ones that can't be immediately fixed. > > That gives a 0 fail baseline to work from for detecting regressions, and > test failures should be associated with bug reports anyway so it's not > like they'd get lost forever. > > Nat > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf > wrote: > > On 08/29/2011 12:23 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On 8/28/11 11:06 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >> I would really like to see the number of failed tests hit 0 before we > >> even consider a 5.4 beta release. It shouldn't take that long to > fix the > >> remaining tests. I'm down to 48 with just about everything > enabled on my > >> Ubuntu laptop here. They are listed here if you are curious: > >> http://codepad.org/jtVeWgao > > > > It'd be a great idea to get 0 fails. Could we do it by Wed? ;) > > I don't know, but the release schedule relies on us fixing outstanding > issues. Given our recent history, failing bugs are, and should be, > outstanding issues. > > -Rasmus > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >