Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89571
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: julienpauli@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH42HjgxvhNr8G48U==i6vx7Fy8hiu9kR7hWOaV+FM7+_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DUB128-W930E1C18231D67D9FA0DE7BA060@phx.gbl> <045401d12cd3$d7d57ff0$87807fd0$@belski.net>
 <565EA53F.5050507@php.net> <047301d12cdd$5e248020$1a6d8060$@belski.net>
 <565FD845.7090502@php.net> <005801d12da1$fc169ce0$f443d6a0$@belski.net>
 <C68F8D40-A665-4663-B62F-9C32E3FB1181@zend.com> <CAEZPtU7afsY2ET=dWCvtBtFZw6QEJXtJDKV6itzSHtk767Ov-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <566023E0.1010903@php.net> <CAH-PCH42HjgxvhNr8G48U==i6vx7Fy8hiu9kR7hWOaV+FM7+_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:14:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMUwpuTsGxmF+n5exuQxScayp2SUZ1WT=vcR=btaoS4FYhDR5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?= <francois@php.net>, 
	Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>, Sebastian Bergmann <sebastian@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay
From: jpauli@php.net (Julien Pauli)

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.ne=
t>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 03/12/2015 11:17, Pierre Joye a =C3=A9crit :
>>
>>> The releases must be kept on hold until these binaries (and other are
>>> done in the same time btw) are validated. See it as part of the QA. As =
Remi
>>> mentioned, many issues have be caught during this process. If it was on=
ly
>>> about delivering binaries, a day later will never be a problem. But it =
is
>>> not the case. The case we are referring toi is to avoid to have to do a
>>> fast patch release to work around an issue we could have seen by valida=
ting
>>> the binaries.Simple.
>>>
>>
>> I understand your pov and I agree that windows binaries should be ready
>> when announcing the release. But, IMO, everything should have been 'froz=
en'
>> 2 or 3 days ago and a new openssl release or any other 3rd party softwar=
e,
>> even tagged 'security fixes' shouldn't have disturbed the process. Or th=
e
>> change is hot enough to delay the date again, but that's another process=
.
>>
>> Sorry to say that, as it doesn't remove anything to my respect for the
>> huge work you did, but It's now Dec, 4th in more and more locations in t=
he
>> world and PHP 7 is not released yet ! Zeev is right, nobody cares about =
UTC
>> in such case.
>
>
> Yeah, and if we released a couple of hours ago there would be places wher=
e
> it was still dec 2.
> I can remember at least 3 similar occasion when an openssl release was
> coming the same day as our release and we have always waited for the
> windows builds, I don't even remember any arguments about that.
> As others mentioned waiting for the windows builds are not mandatory, so =
if
> the windows build team would be slacking off or going MIA we could just
> ignore it and push the release, but I don't think that the current
> situation would warrant ignoring our standard procedure used for years.

+1 . We've always followed this path , but now it is PHP 7 majors release,
some people here seem to discover the RM processing and try to change it
to urge things.

Please, respect each other's work , and if we want to change something
in RM processing, then just start a discussion about it.

I remember in 5.5 RMing having to wait for WIndows builds (OpenSSL related,
or not), and delayed the announcement of the release by +1 day.
This has happened already.

Julien.Pauli