On 06/05/2011 03:27 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
This is a prime example of what we're talking about. Several have
expressed a desire to follow an Ubuntu style of branching instead
of the style proposed in said RFC. This is a core issue, so the
RFC is certainly not ready to adopt.
So does this require a new RFC, or do the RFC proposers feel this
is a key concept?
I think that this RFC does not contain Ubuntu-style LTS and it
doesn't look like it's author(s) support it, so it should be some
different point, which may be RFCed and voted on if we see
substantial support for it.
Speaking of which, I personally don't understand how LTS thing would
work in PHP. Does it mean we'd decide out of the blue that some
version would have extended support, upfront? Like, say, we now say
"5.5 would have extended support"? Why would we want to do this, how
would we know it? E.g., I understand if we had an option of
extending support for some version post-factum, e.g., somewhere in
2015 we'd say "5.4 is so damn good and 5.5 has so many substantial
changes that now we want 5.4 support to be extended another couple
of years, and we feel we have people that are willing to do it". We
could then talk on it and decide it, nothing prevents it. But as I
understand LTS model means we'd have to decide it now, in 2011, and
I don't see how it works. Could some of the proponents on this
model explain it?
The trunk development and the branching policy & process isn't
adequately captured in the RFC. This is a gray area that should be
included.
It's a pity little of the mail list discussion seems to have been
merged back to the RFC as clarifications, or in a comment & answer
section.
Chris
--
Email: christopher.jo...@oracle.com
Tel: +1 650 506 8630
Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
