Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73609 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40425 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2014 02:32:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Apr 2014 02:32:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=kris.craig@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=kris.craig@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: kris.craig@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.219.49 mail-oa0-f49.google.com Received: from [209.85.219.49] ([209.85.219.49:50655] helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D8/00-39592-FACB0435 for ; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 21:32:15 -0500 Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id o6so5203592oag.22 for ; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:32:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TnHW1g2f4gjbDOkyaP09+9Bm73Zb+TBlbm9E6BZDlUE=; b=ClC1Y1A+dLouu8YxTkcXbq70cOsXpbhEjwLTJlfARCTV7meGPLO/DXX0/gPMjMhRWs wHNkqcmthdrczpTcBdB09W0hhFd2yEmB8S+Jz5kRBkNKTs0UNphFk1Nd9t5tG7cxm544 3x1RLgwZPzpg34GjlRMDSo/g/NpJErnInF2Jz7X+m9dPiMCZd9BYxnN8X1/FrDkqp8NF 0dwmJ94BMSmwMwI1sb4wg9kKdGNPrOY8G6G6fkF9W1dCr4oaNnrauhhlt/8NxJ4W15FL TNlzirpKd1bXv1QiQ1IYssxnsTPKlHYXmRmFK3mYsYs0Q3rAQZLZSNAnnKEYypETHxEk FP0Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.61.66 with SMTP id n2mr27049372oer.11.1396751532717; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.231.230 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 19:32:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53404ED4.7080304@sugarcrm.com> References: <1396523991.2982.340.camel@guybrush> <1396527638.2982.350.camel@guybrush> <533F9C11.9000303@sugarcrm.com> <688A2215-A79A-417B-8E7A-76CF03DF9F35@gmail.com> <533FBFB3.3010808@sugarcrm.com> <53404ED4.7080304@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 19:32:12 -0700 Message-ID: To: Stas Malyshev Cc: Nikita Popov , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= , Julien Pauli , PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133059ef27b9904f6568e9b Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Branching PHP6 From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig) --001a1133059ef27b9904f6568e9b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > A github fork of a semi-active PHP core developer likely has at least > > ten additional "active" (as in, not yet merged) branches. > > These branches are in dev's private fork, so I'm pretty confident the > devs can manage their own backyard. They also don't have to import every > branch from main repo to their private repo, AFAIK. > > > I think keeping around dead branches does have a cost. It blows up > > branch listings significantly. If you open the branch list on github and > > try to find something you'll end up scrolling through more than fifty > > release branches and other dead ends. > > It has a completion widget there, and I still not sure what is > "something" you're looking for there. Is it "PHP-5.6"? It's not hard to > find then, you know its name. The issue seems to me getting much more > attention than it deserves. > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > You are correct in that it's not a catastrophic issue or anything. But even if it's not that big a deal, it's still a mess. And I guess the point I'm making is that, if there's a cleaner way of doing this that doesn't introduce any costs or other drawbacks (which there is and it doesn't), then why not do it the cleaner way going forward starting with PHP 6? Here's a quick breakdown of what we'd be looking at: - Release managers would continue to have exclusive commit access to release branches. - Current and past versions would still be quickly and easily accessible via tags, just as they are now. - Branching would better reflect segregation of maintenance releases from trunk commits. - Feature branching would be consistent and would not add to clutter. - The corpses of old EOL branches would no longer pile-up and linger for eternity. - The reduced clutter will make it easier to locate active branches and much easier to read and make sense of the commit history. On the flip side, there really aren't any drawbacks. The only case against doing this that I'm seeing is "it's no big deal". Maybe it's not that big a deal, but it's still an improvement that doesn't introduce any adverse consequences. I realize that some people who are still Git-weary might be a little reluctant to tweak the branching procedure at all, but it's really not as complicated as it sounds. --Kris --001a1133059ef27b9904f6568e9b--