Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89358
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <n3052r$377$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <DUB128-W228B016631AB396522B21DBA070@phx.gbl>
	<n3052r$377$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:39:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH550+REuFN=KFEQkENsGQdip=1_Pz--OGAf-pOSUEXcow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Good guy <xfsgpr@hotmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148e62a5f6f4a05253dbc6e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 7.0.0 release
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a1148e62a5f6f4a05253dbc6e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Good guy <xfsgpr@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/11/2015 21:10, Anatol Belski wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is sad to see that the discussion went in the direction it went, but
>> I'm glad to have missed that being away all day and at the end of it
>> realizing my mail server messed up. Please lets get the tone down and
>> discuss factually!
>>
>> I would like to turn back to the point I was depicting in my first mail =
-
>> the current stuff destined (including the bug fix for the sym table issu=
e
>> ofc) into the 7.NEXT looks pretty much like a set of fixes for a patch
>> version. It is enough to go through the NEWS of 5.5 or 5.6 and compare t=
o
>> realize that. In aforementioned NEWS files, several bugs can be evaluate=
d
>> even as more critical as the subject caused the discussion. An accusatio=
n
>> that the intention to deliver this as GA has the purpose of something ba=
d
>> has therefore just no objective base. In opposite - looking like a patch
>> release is a testimony that 7.0 is ripe enough to enter the routine life
>> cycle.
>>
>> Today, we have a set of patches that can deliver a stable 7.0.0 to the
>> today's knowledge (remember also 5.x NEWS files in conjunction with this=
).
>> I probably just repeat what I was telling - any known app compatible wit=
h
>> 7.0.0 today has the tests green today.
>>
>> To comply with the above and the definition of stable. Now, with
>> 7.0.0. The gap between 5 and 7 is big, the number of
>> ported apps is small, same with the number of developers using it. How
>> do we get the wheel to spin? Please think strategically. How do we get
>> the 7.0.0 GA to have the gap to be the same as between some adjacent PHP=
5
>> minor releases?
>>
>> Short - one can delay. There is a group of people who wants it to be
>> done. What does that mean? That means, less usage, less testing, slower =
bug
>> discovery. Even shorter - one can release. What does that mean? That mea=
ns
>> that we are on the track, more apps are getting ported, more people use =
it,
>> more bugs we fix - we are stable.
>>
>> Just to remind - the RC7 was caused but the exact reason that it were
>> impossible and extremely bad to deliver an untested lot of various and
>> partially bad issues. And that was suitable. That's why also other two
>> weeks was taken. It is quite pointless to have a one week RC, because th=
e
>> feedback on that is negligible and consequently no real bugs are catched=
.
>> It doesn't comply with the expressed intention to validate the bug fix.
>> Now, it is of course the matter of the definition, but issuing one more =
RC
>> for the bugs that are don't even stand near the cause of the RC7 doesn't
>> sound like an appropriate action. Either the bugs are heavy weight and  =
the
>> fixes need to be properly tested, or they are not. Except one turns back=
 to
>> the thesis that there should be no bugs.
>>
>> So in the end, a solution is wanted. I don't think any opinion is allowe=
d
>> to be ignored for such a topic. So options
>>
>> a) release on 26th including all known bug fixes
>> b) do RC8, assume there are no bugs, so target 10th for RTM
>> c) do RC8, release on 3rd, expect there are no bugs come in
>> d) continue issuing release candidates till it's stable enough (needs
>> definition of stable and probably an RFC)
>>
>> I would really ask to reach a consent on either a) or c). IMO, the
>> options b) and d) are the direct road to curbing 7.0.0.  There is no hur=
ry
>> to release just to release, but it is definitely harmful to slow down th=
e
>> rise.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Anatol
>>
>>
>>
>
> when is it available from Windows binaries download site?  It still says
> this:
>
> 7 has no release <http://s13.postimg.org/t6j2b0czb/2015_11_23_2241.png>
>
>
> http://windows.php.net/download/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
http://windows.php.net/qa

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a1148e62a5f6f4a05253dbc6e--