Perhaps the "Status" field could be expanded so that bugs that are deemed necessary for the "stable" branch would follow a path like:
open -> ... -> fixed in current -> merged to stable -> closed (or something like that) That way if a bug is fixed in "current", it will remain "open" until it is tested there, merged into "stable" and tested there. Clearly not all bugs would need merging to stable, and most would just be closed right away. At least this way people could request merging into stable, and one could search bugs based on status for a list of to-be-merged bugs before considering any bug-fix releases. That might help reduce the number of things that get overlooked on the "stable" branch. -James On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Xavier Spriet wrote: > This is quiteconcerning. > It appears the PHP release process is not suited to the way PHP is developed anymore > and this can lead in severe inconsistencies. > What seemed to have happened is that several bugfixes were fixed in CVS instead of >the bugfix release which if fine with me... but the bugs in question are pretty >important. > This seems to be partly due to a lack of communication between developement and QA >since this problem was aborded weeks ago already and Sebastian Nohn raised that >question on several occasions. > > The way the developement team and qa can improve the organisation for better >communication can be solved easily in the upcoming weeks, however, it seems now we >have to face a more important problem. > > IMHO, it is important that the 64bits architecture related bugs be fixed in the next >release as most of the people that will be pissed off if it doesn't, are business >users that absolutely need a modern release to work in their environement or will >simply stop supporting PHP in their environement/business. > > Many good suggestions have been made, mine is to find out which bugs were "fixed in >CVS" and are important and spend the week on backporting them to the bugfix release, >4.2.3 > We can have a RC1 ready for next monday and no doubt we won't need a RC2 and can >release later that week. > > Do you guys think this could be done in an acceptable timeframe ? > > Thanks. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sat 17/08/2002 11:37 AM > To: Rasmus Lerdorf > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.2.3 > > > > It's not a matter of what we call it - I thought it would make sense to > release a new version based on the 4.2 branch, because 4.3 has TONS of new > features and is thus very likely to introduce new inconsistencies and > bugs. As people have said here several times in the last few weeks, most > users will be unlikely to install 4.3.0 anyway, until they either hear it's > ok, or see it mature with a few bugfix releases. > Just a thought. > > Zeev > > At 18:33 17/08/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >Regardless of what we call it, we need to light a fire under people to get > >a new release out. The fixes are piling up in CVS. Stig, could you give > >us a status report? Do you still have time to push this release? > > > >-R > > > >On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > > Ok then, I retract my suggestion to release 4.2.3. > > > > > > Zeev > > > > > > At 17:59 17/08/2002, Dan Kalowsky wrote: > > > >I disagree that it should go out as is, very strongly at that too. > > > > > > > >Some fixes not in the 4.2 branches: > > > > > > > >- ODBC no longer crashes on Windows upon unloading > > > >- while not fully tested, ext/java now works for 1.4 JDK's > > > >- various memory leak fixes provied by Ilia (pack being one of them) > > > >- a few misc fixes for Win32 platforms > > > >- nsapi build fix which allows it to build and reported run again > > > > (although I still think we need to decide if we can kill this support) > > > >- numerous domxml bug fixes have been added as well. > > > >- QTDOM fix to allow it to compile again and run again > > > > > > > >This is one yet to be made, but: > > > >- a potential fix to have 'make install' work on AIX machines again > > > > finally. > > > > > > > >These are just bug fixes. I don't want to see new functionality added to > > > >PHP for a potential 4.2.3, but I do want to see a LOT of these bugs > > > >squished. There is a fix, why go and release another version of PHP with > > > >known and non-fixed bugs in it? > > > > > > > >It still doesn't seem to compile and work on 64-bit arch's. > > > > > > > >But yet again, there are numerous reasons why we should move to release > > > >PHP 4.3. The biggest of which in my book is, it supports OSX! While > > > >possibly a minor issue to many of the users on this list, it's becoming a > > > >more significant issue, especially with Jaguar/10.2 being released in a > > > >few days. There have been numerous fixes to all the code bases in an > > > >effort to get support for OSX implemented into them (ext/java still being > > > >a bastard). > > > > > > > > > > > >On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think it makes good sense to release 4.2.3 as-is (after a short > > QA cycle, > > > > > that will ensure we didn't introduce any new bugs). If 4.2.3 becomes a > > > > > larger project, with more pre-requisites, I don't see it happening > > ("if it > > > > > will not be simple, it will simply not be"). > > > > > The last time around 4.2.3 died was exactly due to this issue. > > > > > > > > > > Zeev > > > > > > > > > > At 16:47 17/08/2002, Dan Kalowsky wrote: > > > > > >I have to disagree, a LOT of bug fixes have gone in. > > > > > > > > > > > >Honest I can run through the list of things I think should be > > done, and a > > > > > >list of things that I think should be back ported. None of it is new > > > > > >functionality, all of it is fixes to bugs. > > > > > > > > > > > >And I still think the Tru64/AIX issues will need to be solved as well. > > > > > > > > > > > >On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd really like to avoid waiting this time, though (the enemy of > > > > good is > > > > > > > better...). Even if we release 4.2.3 as it is in the branch, > > > > without any > > > > > > > further fixes, it's significantly better than 4.2.2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Translating this into action - my personal preference is to release > > > > the RC > > > > > > > as early as tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 16:20 17/08/2002, Dan Kalowsky wrote: > > > > > > > >Hrm, well a lot of the fixes I've been doing have only gone to > > head > > > > > > > >because the belief of no 4.2.3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >There are still a few outstanding bugs I'd like to see fixed > > > > before things > > > > > > > >we RC. Sfox and I (mostly her though) have been looking at > > the dbm_* > > > > > > > >functionality on Windows. We're questioning if it ever worked > > at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I can run through a list if there is a desire to see one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to raise the option of releasing 4.2.3 again. I > > believe > > > > > > that it > > > > > > > > > would be quite a while before 4.3.0 is out, and there are > > quite a > > > > > > few fixes > > > > > > > > > in the 4.2 branch that should make the userbase as soon as > > > > possible, > > > > > > > > > especially the Windows userbase. > > > > > > > > > I think that releasing 4.2.3 can be done within approximately > > > > one week, > > > > > > > > > with one RC, barring unexpected surprises. > > > > > > > > > Opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------< > > > > > > > >Dan Kalowsky "A little less conversation, > > > > > > > >http://www.deadmime.org/~dank a little more action." > > > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "A Little Less Conversation", > > > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Elvis Presley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------< > > > > > >Dan Kalowsky "A little less conversation, > > > > > >http://www.deadmime.org/~dank a little more action." > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "A Little Less Conversation", > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Elvis Presley > > > > > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------< > > > >Dan Kalowsky "A little less conversation, > > > >http://www.deadmime.org/~dank a little more action." > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "A Little Less Conversation", > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Elvis Presley > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > > > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > > -- > > > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > -- > PHP Quality Assurance Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
