# Merge from 5.3 and/or 5.4. What's the current policy? - Thread: https://externals.io/message/59213 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/59213 - Started by Yasuo Ohgaki on 2012-03-30T00:59:29+00:00 - Messages: 6 - 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 --- ## #59213 — Yasuo Ohgaki — 2012-03-30T00:59:29+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59213#59213 Hi, Since the git work flow in the wiki requires to apply patch to lowest possible branch, then merge upwards. This changes old work flow, commit trunk, then merge to release. I've committed simple build problem fix to all branches, I think release masters don't care such merge. However, how about feature changes? I have simple patch for Request #47570 libpq's PG_VERSION should be exported to userland https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=47570 This is simple change, but it's new feature. (I added 2 new module constants for PG_VERSION, PG_VERSION_STR) Question is "What's the standard work flow for new features?" Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net --- ## #59222 — Gustavo Lopes — 2012-03-30T07:37:22+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59213#59222 · In reply to: #59213 On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:59:29 +0200, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > Since the git work flow in the wiki requires to apply patch to > lowest possible branch, then merge upwards. > > This changes old work flow, commit trunk, then merge to > release. > > I've committed simple build problem fix to all branches, I think > release masters don't care such merge. However, how about > feature changes? > > I have simple patch for > > Request #47570 libpq's PG_VERSION should be exported to userland > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=47570 > > This is simple change, but it's new feature. (I added 2 new module > constants for PG_VERSION, PG_VERSION_STR) > > Question is "What's the standard work flow for new features?" > I don't see how this is any different. "Lowest possible branch" doesn't necessarily mean 5.3. It can mean 5.4 or master. If the feature is not appropriate for 5.3, but it is for 5.4 and master, commit it to 5.4 and merge 5.4 into master. Or it can be appropriate just for master, in which case there's no merge into other branches. This is the most common scenario -- when a commit is applicable to one branch and all other more recent ones. The problem with the current workflow is only when you have something specific to a lower branch, which is not applicable to upper branches because the code base has diverged. You still have to merge upwards in those situations and resolve the likely conflict (typically with the "ours" strategy). -- Gustavo Lopes --- ## #59225 — Yasuo Ohgaki — 2012-03-30T08:22:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59213#59225 · In reply to: #59222 Hi, Bug fix can be merged upwards. However, Are we free to merge feature changes? Adding new module constant is new feature. I certainly would like to have it on 5.4 and it's probably OK for 5.4, but how about 5.3? So I'm asking procedure before commit. Before git, we just commit new feature/changes to trunk and we could think/argue about merge later. Now we need to think/argue about merge, then commit. We need some guidelines for feature changes, if we are going to keep "merge upward" policy. Anyway, RM of 5.3/5.4 are okay to add module constants to pgsql? If there is no objection, I'll commit the change and updates docs. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net 2012/3/30 Gustavo Lopes : > > > > […] > > I don't see how this is any different. "Lowest possible branch" doesn't > necessarily mean 5.3. It can mean 5.4 or master. > > If the feature is not appropriate for 5.3, but it is for 5.4 and master, > commit it to 5.4 and merge 5.4 into master. Or it can be appropriate just > for master, in which case there's no merge into other branches. This is the > most common scenario -- when a commit is applicable to one branch and all > other more recent ones. > > The problem with the current workflow is only when you have something > specific to a lower branch, which is not applicable to upper branches > because the code base has diverged. You still have to merge upwards in those > situations and resolve the likely conflict (typically with the "ours" > strategy). > > -- > Gustavo Lopes --- ## #59226 — Pierre Joye — 2012-03-30T08:45:01+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59213#59226 · In reply to: #59225 hi, > Bug fix can be merged upwards. However, > Are we free to merge feature changes? Generally speaking, no. > Adding new module constant is new feature. Not necessary, for example in Curl or openssl, many constants addition do not change the implementation per se. But it has to be discussed from a case by case basis. > Before git, we just commit new feature/changes > to trunk and we could think/argue about merge > later. Now we need to think/argue about merge, > then commit. Right, and that's actually very good. The commit first then try to discuss is finally over. > We need some guidelines for feature changes, > if we are going to keep "merge upward" policy. > Anyway, RM of 5.3/5.4 are okay to add module > constants to pgsql? If there is no objection, I'll > commit the change and updates docs. RMs apply the developers decisions, in general. So please post your proposals to the list, CCing them :) Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #59227 — johannes@schlueters.de — 2012-03-30T09:40:15+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59213#59227 · In reply to: #59225 > Hi, > > Bug fix can be merged upwards. However, > Are we free to merge feature changes? > > Adding new module constant is new feature. > I certainly would like to have it on 5.4 and it's > probably OK for 5.4, but how about 5.3? > So I'm asking procedure before commit. Either be brave and make a decision yourself or ask for a specific case. For 5.3 the situation is that only bug fixes should go in. There are two reasons for that: * Backwards compatibility. Users must be able to upgrade from 5.3.x to 5.3.(x+1) without thinking about it. Everything must run as before. * Users should have as many reasons as possible to upgrade to a newer version. Now there's of course the old question "what's a bug and what's a feature?" which is hard to answer in some cases. http://blog.zugschlus.de/uploads/bug-feature.jpg Adding a constant can brings two potential compatibility issues. One is that it might require a newer library version and is breaking compatibility there and it might conflict with a name used in a user application. I think on the first one we are quite safe and the second one is also low risk ... and well _not_ adding the constant is a bit ridiculous ;-) All that aside: Two comments on the "feature design": A. A function pg_version() exists, having both, a function pg_version() and a constant PG_VERSION, which do slightly different things is confusing. B. All existing constants use PGSQL_* as prefix. -> Maybe a different name like PGSQL_CLIENT_VERSION is better. johannes --- ## #59228 — Yasuo Ohgaki — 2012-03-30T09:43:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59213#59228 · In reply to: #59226 Hi 2012/3/30 Pierre Joye : > hi, > > > > > […] > > > Generally speaking, no. I thought so. > > > […] > > Not necessary, for example in Curl or openssl, many constants addition > do not change the implementation per se. But it has to be discussed > from a case by case basis. > > > […] > > Right, and that's actually very good. The commit first then try to > discuss is finally over. For large changes, discussing first is good. For small changes like this, it may be too much. > > > […] > > > […] > > RMs apply the developers decisions, in general. So please post your > proposals to the list, CCing them :) https://gist.github.com/2250214 The change is simple one. Just making constants available defined in pg-config.h The only reason why I've made this thread for this simple change is "merge upward" policy. Someone suggested gitflow, the flow would be better for faster development. -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net