Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58919 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 83153 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2012 18:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Mar 2012 18:55:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ceo@l-i-e.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ceo@l-i-e.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain l-i-e.com designates 67.139.134.202 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ceo@l-i-e.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.139.134.202 o2.hostbaby.com FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.3) (2) Received: from [67.139.134.202] ([67.139.134.202:1845] helo=o2.hostbaby.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 60/00-17591-B089F5F4 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:55:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 23559 invoked by uid 98); 13 Mar 2012 18:55:08 -0000 Received: from localhost by o2.hostbaby.com (envelope-from , uid 1013) with qmail-scanner-2.05 ( Clear:RC:1(127.0.0.1):. Processed in 0.037404 secs); 13 Mar 2012 18:55:08 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO www.l-i-e.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Mar 2012 18:55:07 -0000 Received: from webmail (SquirrelMail authenticated user ceo@l-i-e.com) by www.l-i-e.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:55:07 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:55:07 -0500 To: internals@lists.php.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] HEADS UP: 5.4 branch is open again From: ceo@l-i-e.com ("Richard Lynch") On Fri, March 2, 2012 4:26 am, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > If we can agree upon the next version number beforehand, and we decide > that > we will go with the major release (be that php 6 or 7, whatever), we > don't > to do anything right now, we can branch the version from trunk/master, > when > the time comes. > If we can't agree upon the next version number, or we agree upon that > there > will be an 5.5 version, I think it would make sense to create a branch > for > it ASAP, so there is place (trunk/master) for the approved but > backward > incompatible changes, and people don't have to hold patches. > What do you think? If I was in charge, and thankfully I'm not, I'd just create 5.5 and 6.0 If you have patches that don't break BC, put them in both. If you're too busy to do both, put it in 6.0 Somebody will back-port or not, based on their relative need/availability or not. If it breaks BC, put it in 6.0 Or perhaps I misunderstand the tiny bit I thought I "got it" of the point of using Git in the first place... Branches and merges are supposed to be seamless, right??? -- brain cancer update: http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE