Hi Internals,
We have been working on getting this rfc on how to have clear and
transparent releases process, release cycles and how and which
features get into a release. The RFC is finally ready for the votes.
Therefore we call for votes on the release process RFC.
The RFC can be found here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess
You can vote here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess/vote
Votes are open until Monday 27.06.2011.
Thank you,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://libgd.org
Hi Internals,
We have been working on getting this rfc on how to have clear and
transparent releases process, release cycles and how and which
features get into a release. The RFC is finally ready for the votes.
Therefore we call for votes on the release process RFC.The RFC can be found here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess
You can vote here:
In this RFC, there is still the "options" for both one major and
multiple major versions at the same time. I don't think you can vote on
something that is unclear. I therefore voted -1.
I am not generally against this RFC, but this point needs to be
discussed first IMO. As having 5 active branches at the same time for
the "multiple major releases" option is not workable.
cheers,
Derick
I am not generally against this RFC, but this point needs to be
discussed first IMO. As having 5 active branches at the same time for
the "multiple major releases" option is not workable.
If its because of the constant merges, it would be workable if a DVCS was
being used =)
Regards,
David
I am not generally against this RFC, but this point needs to be
discussed first IMO. As having 5 active branches at the same time for
the "multiple major releases" option is not workable.If its because of the constant merges, it would be workable if a DVCS was
being used =)
Even then it is hard. The "pure" merging is one thing. But for merging
you first need to evaluate whether the patch is needed in the branch and
test the patch on every branch. Over time the branches will diverge.
Even if a patch applies it might be the wrong thing for a branch.
And then every of these branches should be released. For a release one
needs QA cycles etc.
johannes
Am 20.06.2011 15:30, schrieb Derick Rethans:
I am not generally against this RFC, but this point needs to be
discussed first IMO. As having 5 active branches at the same time for
the "multiple major releases" option is not workable.
I agree.
--
Sebastian Bergmann Co-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
Am 20.06.2011 15:30, schrieb Derick Rethans:
I am not generally against this RFC, but this point needs to be
discussed first IMO. As having 5 active branches at the same time for
the "multiple major releases" option is not workable.I agree.
That's why we added a couple of notices about 12 or 18 months. It is
also very unlikely that we end we end in such situations anyway.And
even if we do, given the strictness (about what can be applied), We
didn't see much of a problem here.
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
Le Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:59:51 +0200, Pierre Joye a écrit :
Hi Internals,
We have been working on getting this rfc on how to have clear and
transparent releases process, release cycles and how and which features
get into a release. The RFC is finally ready for the votes.
Therefore we call for votes on the release process RFC.The RFC can be found here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess
You can vote here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess/vote
Votes are open until Monday 27.06.2011.
Thank you,
Hi,
I can't vote but I give my full support to this RFC. It is a great
improvement of the process which will give a better visibility on the
releases.
Bruno