That makes sense. Lets move it out of head and into a branch.
On 11 May, 15:25, "Simon Laws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/11/07, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Simon, yes I did. I had been assured that this would be ok because
> > the 'development in a branch' approach is really only necessary for
> > native extension code (because pecl4win always pulls this from HEAD).
> > Let me know if you think the binding should go elsewhere.
> > On 11 May, 14:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Nice Graham. Don't have any feedback yet but a quick question. Did you
> > > mean to check it into HEAD rather than the branch?
> > > Simon
> > I guess it's OK as we are just about to put another release. You are right
> about the pecl4win thing so any php changes in HEAD will not affect the dlls
> that people download. However as we have this rather strange situation where
> we release from HEAD and develop in a branch rather than the other way round
> HEAD is our live representation of the last release so if we have to make a
> quick fix that's where we would do it. I guess we could make a branch from
> the release lable if we really had to but that's starting to get
> complicated. If we start developing code in two places it just gets really
> complicated IMHO.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at