I don't think we can just not provide some place for people to work on new code. We have way too many extensions in various states of development to just arbitrarily tell everyone to stop what they are doing. The ext/xslt work going on right now is a good example along with the image rotation functions for GD that are waiting in the wings. Whether the 4.3 branch was created too early or not is debatable, but a date was set to give people a kick in the ass and in that respect it worked pretty well. A lot of problems were fixed, or at least looked at in the last week. The answer may be to re-branch when we are ready for RC1. When the implicit_flush mess is resolved and Melvyn gives the thumbs up for the Sablotron stuff then I think we are ready for RC1.
-Rasmus On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I think we'd be better off waiting a bit with the php5 move. In general I > just don't think we can push a successful release while we continue > developing. If we concentrate on getting 4.3 out the door within a month, > we can then concentrate on php5. > > Zeev > > At 13:33 06/10/2002, Derick Rethans wrote: > >On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Sander Roobol wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 11:01:02AM +0200, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think that given the circumstances, we should scratch the 4.3 > > branch and > > > > > stick to the main branch for this particular release, at least > > until we're > > > > > very close to the release itself. The vast majority of CVS traffic > > going > > > > > on these days is bug fixes anyway, so creating the branch only > > makes it > > > > > more difficult to keep up - you have to keep the two branches in sync. > > > > > > > > > > Issuing a request for people not to develop new features for a > > couple of > > > > > months (or telling them to develop in some -dev branch), will, in my > > > > > opinion, work better than our conventional release process. I'm very > > > > > worried about sync problems with 4.3. > > > > > > > > Maybe it's time to opening up the php5 module then... people would be > > > > able to work on experimental stuff there without messing up the stable > > > > module. It might be a psychological thing but I think it's appropriate > > > > here. > > > > > > +1 on removing the branch - to avoid problems with staying in sync with > > head > > > -1 on the php5 module - it'll move the sync problems to another place > > > >I think it does solve things. When there is the php5 module for 'happy > >hacking', but without touching that's great for new functions, > >rewritten extensions etc.. > >while you can fix bugs on the stable, supported, php4 module. Synching > >when we start actively on php4 would be only needed for not-modified > >extensions in the php5 module. And perhaps once a month for the PHP > >core. THis will be much more maintainable than the little merges evry > >hour. > > > >regards, > >Derick > > > >-- > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ > > JDI Media Solutions > >--------------[ if you hold a unix shell to your ear, do you hear the c? ]- > > > > > >-- > >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 Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
