2010/11/25 Davey Shafik <da...@php.net>:
>
> On Nov 24, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Wallner <m...@php.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2010 02:30 AM, Felipe Pena wrote:
>>
>>>> 5.4 should be hold off until we solved the listed issues and the
>>>> release management RFC gets discussed and hopefully approved.
>
> The reality is that trunk is not going to be 5.4; it cannot be in its current 
> state.
>
> The reason behind ditching the unicode php6 was to enable innovation in 
> trunk. This meant
> we could have traits, type hinting, apc in core etc, as well as internal 
> enhancements, the new lemon
> parser etc. Regardless of the arguments and unresolved issues, this IS 
> happening, and IS a good thing.
>
> The goal then was to essentially take the 5.3 branch, create a 5.4 branch, 
> cherry pick commits to trunk
> and apply them to the 5.4 branch and end up with a stable build. 
> Unfortunately, subversion merging sucks.
>
> This is an unreliable, laborious, crappy method for creating stable branches, 
> and managing the
> repo. Worse yet, SVN's merge-tracking/branch reintegration also sucks, so 
> creating feature branches and
> re-integrating is also a pretty crappy solution.
>
> So, with the BC breaks committed to trunk (register globals) or that we want 
> to commit to trunk (magic quotes), as
> well as the code without consensus, creating a stable 5.4 branch is going to 
> be a lot of work.
>
> Now, I'm no advocate of git (I've yet to jump on the bandwagon for my main 
> repo, but have several small projects on
> github), but it seems that it's capabilities would make these things much 
> more trivial. Obviously: not a solution for now.
>
> We need to get our repo in order first, then we can start talking about 5.4. 
> The RMs need to make a definitive
> stand about how the repo will be managed, and explain to us how that's going 
> to trickle down to our personal habits.
>
> This doesn't seem the ideal time to introduce a new toolchain, so sticking 
> with SVN, we should  maintain 4 branches, 5.2 (security only), 5.3 (bug fixes 
> + security), 5.4 (agreed upon enhancements, no BC breaks), 6.0 (BC breaks).
>
> Non-agreed upon enhancements, potential BC breaks, all should be done in 
> feature branches. This gives people buildable
> (hopefully) branches to use for testing, revision control for those 
> developing the features, and unmuddied commit histories
> to more easily pull those changes into the appropriate branches.
>
> - Davey
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

I think Davey has a clear view and a good explanation about the
current situation.
Trunk has been used for both short and long term development hence the
difficulties to agree that trunk is about 5.4 or +.

In a first place, we should decide on what to have for 5.4 and what to
leave for the future.

A technical way to do it would be to use git-svn locally, starting
from the PHP_5_3 branch and merging it with trunk. git rebase -i can
then be used easily to remove all the commits we don't want to appear
in 5.4.

-- 
Patrick

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to