# HEADS UP: 5.4 branch is open again - Thread: https://externals.io/message/58443 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/58443 - Started by David Soria Parra on 2012-03-02T00:33:51+00:00 - Messages: 17 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #58443 — David Soria Parra — 2012-03-02T00:33:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58443 Hi internals, just a heads up. The PHP_5_4 branch is open for commits again. - David --- ## #58459 — Stefan Marr — 2012-03-02T07:39:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58459 · In reply to: #58443 Hi: > just a heads up. The PHP_5_4 branch is open for commits again. Thanks to Stat and you for all the work! When is cycle for 5.4.1 going to start? I got a few traits-related patches waiting for it. Thanks Stefan -- Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525 --- ## #58460 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-03-02T07:47:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58460 · In reply to: #58459 Hi! > When is cycle for 5.4.1 going to start? > I got a few traits-related patches waiting for it. If you have some fixes, you can commit them now. Of course, the rules are as always in stable branch - no BC breaking, no major features :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #58463 — Yasuo Ohgaki — 2012-03-02T09:18:45+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58463 · In reply to: #58460 Hi Stats, I'll work on the patch for strict session patch so that both PHP 5.4 and 5.3 has the same functionality. I've also added 2 new escape functions to pgsql in trunk a while ago, pg_escape_literal()/pg_escape_identifier(). Is it okay to merge 5.4 branch also? You mentioned it's okay for 5.4.1, but double checking. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net 2012/3/2 Stas Malyshev : > Hi! > > > > […] > > > If you have some fixes, you can commit them now. Of course, the rules are as > always in stable branch - no BC breaking, no major features :) > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #58464 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-03-02T09:26:48+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58464 · In reply to: #58443 > Hi internals, > > just a heads up. The PHP_5_4 branch is open for commits again. > > - David > > -- > > > > On a somehow related topic: Now that we have 5.4 out, I have a question: Do we know what will be the next major release? If we want to follow the releaseprocess RFC, I think it would be nice to think about whether we plan to roll out a major or a minor version next. By the RFC, we can't do such changes to the language as we did with 5.2->5.3 or 5.3->5.4, because userland BC breaks aren't allowed. So I can see two way to address this: If we can agree upon the next version number beforehand, and we decide that we will go with the major release (be that php 6 or 7, whatever), we don't to do anything right now, we can branch the version from trunk/master, when the time comes. If we can't agree upon the next version number, or we agree upon that there will be an 5.5 version, I think it would make sense to create a branch for it ASAP, so there is place (trunk/master) for the approved but backward incompatible changes, and people don't have to hold patches. What do you think? -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #58514 — Kris Craig — 2012-03-02T19:00:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58514 · In reply to: #58464 From the timelines I've seen floating around, I was under the impression that the next one would be 5.5, followed by 5.6, etc. PHP 6 is at least a few years off according to every projection I've seen. --Kris > > > > […] > On a somehow related topic: > Now that we have 5.4 out, I have a question: > Do we know what will be the next major release? > If we want to follow the releaseprocess RFC, I think it would be nice to > think about whether we plan to roll out a major or a minor version next. > By the RFC, we can't do such changes to the language as we did with > 5.2->5.3 or 5.3->5.4, because userland BC breaks aren't allowed. > So I can see two way to address this: > If we can agree upon the next version number beforehand, and we decide that > we will go with the major release (be that php 6 or 7, whatever), we don't > to do anything right now, we can branch the version from trunk/master, when > the time comes. > If we can't agree upon the next version number, or we agree upon that there > will be an 5.5 version, I think it would make sense to create a branch for > it ASAP, so there is place (trunk/master) for the approved but backward > incompatible changes, and people don't have to hold patches. > What do you think? > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #58515 — Pierre Joye — 2012-03-02T19:05:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58515 · In reply to: #58514 that's totally off topic... but we have no idea yet when will be php 6, or whatsoever. However next is in around a year :) > From the timelines I've seen floating around, I was under the impression > that the next one would be 5.5, followed by 5.6, etc.  PHP 6 is at least a > few years off according to every projection I've seen. > > --Kris > > > > > > […] -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #58525 — Ronald Chmara — 2012-03-02T19:33:04+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58525 · In reply to: #58515 > that's totally off topic... but we have no idea yet when will be php > 6, or whatsoever. > However next is in around a year :) "PHPME", "PHPXP", "PHP Feisty Foxbat", "PHP#".... Let's name this bike shed*! -Ronabop *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_Law_of_Triviality --- ## #58528 — Kris Craig — 2012-03-02T19:35:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58528 · In reply to: #58525 Actually, my vote would be for "PHP Vista".... --Kris > > > […] > > "PHPME", "PHPXP", "PHP Feisty Foxbat", "PHP#".... > > Let's name this bike shed*! > > -Ronabop > > *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_Law_of_Triviality --- ## #58530 — Michael Morris — 2012-03-02T19:48:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58530 · In reply to: #58528 PHP 6 comes out sometime around 2024 when, at PHP 5.27 Ramus decides to say, "screw it" - 6. Sorta like what happened with the Linux Kernel (which was 2.26 FOREVER) Tongue in cheek remark aside, we need to be cautious about avoiding using the major version tag (although the stupidity of the browser programming community isn't the way to go either). There are significant differences now between 5.0 and 5.4 functionality, even though the changes between 5.3 and 5.4 are slight - they do add up. Linux fell into this trap - the differences between any two incrementals was tiny, but after 47 of the buggers it was getting ridiculous to say it was still version 2.26.0 compat, which it wasn't. At the end of the day version numbers are perception oriented. If you never move the major number, people will shift perception to the second number being the important one, or in the case of Linux the incremental became the significant one when it shouldn't be. In my opinion, if PHP NEXT has anything - ANYTHING - on par with 5.4 in scope then the distance between it and 5.0 will have become too large to justify calling it a 5.5 and it should be called 6. Fail to do this and the first number will start being ignored by the community at large as superfluous., just as the 2.26 part of the Linux version number had become superfluous before Linux finally bit the bullet and rolled it over. > Actually, my vote would be for "PHP Vista".... > > --Kris > > > > > > […] --- ## #58531 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-03-02T19:53:20+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58531 · In reply to: #58463 Hi! > I'll work on the patch for strict session patch so that both > PHP 5.4 and 5.3 has the same functionality. OK, do you have the latest patch for that? I remember originally it involved some non-BC changes and there were other questions, but I'd like to see the final one. In general, if there's no BC issues, I think it may be OK, but let's see the final patch. > I've also added 2 new escape functions to pgsql in trunk > a while ago, pg_escape_literal()/pg_escape_identifier(). > Is it okay to merge 5.4 branch also? Should be ok, please send me the commit to review. If it doesn't change any structures just adds functions it should be fine. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #58539 — Yasuo Ohgaki — 2012-03-02T23:48:49+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58539 · In reply to: #58531 Hi Stats The new strict session patch is not ready, yet. I'll prepare path for 5.3/5.4/trunk. I was asked for session id collision detection, so I'll also add that for create_sid() functions. > > […] > > > Should be ok, please send me the commit to review. If it doesn't change any > structures just adds functions it should be fine. It just adds new functions. I'll find the commit for review later. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net 2012/3/3 Stas Malyshev : > Hi! > > > > […] > > > OK, do you have the latest patch for that? I remember originally it involved > some non-BC changes and there were other questions, but I'd like to see the > final one. In general, if there's no BC issues, I think it may be OK, but > let's see the final patch. > > > > […] > > > Should be ok, please send me the commit to review. If it doesn't change any > structures just adds functions it should be fine. > > > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #58599 — Matthew Weier O'Phinney — 2012-03-05T15:27:26+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58599 · In reply to: #58443 > just a heads up. The PHP_5_4 branch is open for commits again. Related: With 5.4.0 out... how soon will the cutover to git occur? -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead | matthew@zend.com Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc --- ## #58605 — Pierre Joye — 2012-03-05T16:22:00+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58605 · In reply to: #58599 See the other mail from David on Saturday: http://news.php.net/php.internals/58549 On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > > […] > > Related: With 5.4.0 out... how soon will the cutover to git occur? > > > -- > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > Project Lead            | matthew@zend.com > Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/ > PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc > > -- > > > -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #58650 — David Soria Parra — 2012-03-06T10:52:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58650 · In reply to: #58599 > > > […] > > Related: With 5.4.0 out... how soon will the cutover to git occur? March 15. --- ## #58919 — Richard Lynch — 2012-03-13T18:55:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58919 · In reply to: #58464 > If we can agree upon the next version number beforehand, and we decide > that > we will go with the major release (be that php 6 or 7, whatever), we > don't > to do anything right now, we can branch the version from trunk/master, > when > the time comes. > If we can't agree upon the next version number, or we agree upon that > there > will be an 5.5 version, I think it would make sense to create a branch > for > it ASAP, so there is place (trunk/master) for the approved but > backward > incompatible changes, and people don't have to hold patches. > What do you think? If I was in charge, and thankfully I'm not, I'd just create 5.5 and 6.0 If you have patches that don't break BC, put them in both. If you're too busy to do both, put it in 6.0 Somebody will back-port or not, based on their relative need/availability or not. If it breaks BC, put it in 6.0 Or perhaps I misunderstand the tiny bit I thought I "got it" of the point of using Git in the first place... Branches and merges are supposed to be seamless, right??? -- brain cancer update: http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE --- ## #58920 — Kris Craig — 2012-03-13T19:12:05+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/58443#58920 · In reply to: #58919 Yes, IF you're using a proper branching model. If you're just using it the same way you'd use Subversion, which currently is the direction we seem to be moving in, those advantages are mostly negated. I agree that PHP 5.5 (and maybe even 5.6, etc) should come before PHP 6. That being said, at some point a parallel development workflow might be prudent IMHO, but even that would be a ways off I think. --Kris > > > […] > > If I was in charge, and thankfully I'm not, I'd just create 5.5 and 6.0 > > If you have patches that don't break BC, put them in both. If you're > too busy to do both, put it in 6.0 Somebody will back-port or not, > based on their relative need/availability or not. > > If it breaks BC, put it in 6.0 > > Or perhaps I misunderstand the tiny bit I thought I "got it" of the > point of using Git in the first place... > > Branches and merges are supposed to be seamless, right??? > > -- > brain cancer update: > http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor > Donate: > > https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE