Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75815 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 12305 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2014 05:42:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jul 2014 05:42:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dsoria@gmx.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dsoria@gmx.net; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.net designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dsoria@gmx.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.15.15 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.15.15] ([212.227.15.15:58338] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 4A/73-14611-CD9FDC35 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:42:54 -0400 Received: from davidsp-mbp.local ([174.6.208.55]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LsCAp-1WOCKM2YYx-013utm; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:42:42 +0200 Message-ID: <53CDF9CD.4050902@gmx.net> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:37 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yasuo Ohgaki , David Soria Parra CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:JLmUjjmuFiWxfEGhYJ6+n9WyibxYSkMlsQA1B42j5/EMfHYdEp9 IbiTD4PwGwTisd8XwVAFJ8q2ao8Ks7wdpGdM4h9oNI9Czu3GdFd2Gz1AbsT0eM0tl94WFdx bWgMZEXc+WYo2xvxL9oqQ/fgtvJNYT879FP/x6rMylJefrNnVdjHY8NQN7T/NtU1c60RLT7 ktDfHDxD9JrNaCfxX+q7g== Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master From: dsoria@gmx.net (David Soria Parra) Am 7/21/14, 10:21 PM, schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki: > > Even if we have PHP-5.7 branch, we have merge up policy. Therefore, > any new feature will end up with master, I suppose. If a new feature is > only available to PHP-5.7 branch, it's a merge bug, isn't it? > > Regards, We had this policy before and it didn't help us. The problem is maintiaining all the branches and keeping people interested in the next branch because people tend to focus on the currently release branch. When we decided upon the release RFC we talked a lot about the overhead of maintaing multiple branches and tried to reduce the amount of branches. In particular with API changes it becomes tidious if we try to maintain a feature across branches and that implicit divergence has to be resolved better sooner or later, or otherwise it would be just like the old php6 again. David