On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
On Thursday 18 March 2010 10:05:39 pm Eric Stewart wrote:
+1 For shorter release cycles. Shorter release cycles could also allow us
to move major releases immediately to bug and security fixes only. I've
never
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com
wrote:
On Thursday 18 March 2010 10:05:39 pm Eric Stewart wrote:
+1 For shorter release cycles. Shorter release cycles could also allow
us
to
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Nate Gordon nlgor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com
wrote:
On Thursday 18 March 2010 10:05:39 pm Eric Stewart wrote:
+1
On 3/19/10 10:34 AM, Eric Stewart wrote:
When significant releases are 2-3 years apart, web hosts can expect to
have to
put in actual work every couple of years and mass-market developers can
expect
to have to beat their hosts over the head with a stick every few years.
If
significant
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
The point is that, for instance, PHP 5.3 was not a trivial upgrade for coders
or hosters. Sure it's mostly compatible, and you certainly can write code
that works from 5.0-5.3 just fine, and if not then you're probably doing
something
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 03/16/2010 07:13 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
+ merge php-fpm branch?
Can't see why not. Is there an RFC for this?
No, there are no RFCs on that.
Just copy sapi/fpm to 5_4 and you've merged it.
There is no 5_4, but still, I think there should
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 17:58 16/03/2010, Derick Rethans wrote:
- Declare 5.2 security fixes only (Something for Ilia to declare).
- Declare 5.3 bug fixes only (and ini-mini features if so desired)
(Something for Johannes to declare).
Once that's done, I'd like
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 17:58 16/03/2010, Derick Rethans wrote:
- Declare 5.2 security fixes only (Something for Ilia to declare).
- Declare 5.3 bug fixes only (and ini-mini features if so desired)
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 16.03.2010, at 16:58, Derick Rethans wrote:
other stuff:
http://wiki.php.net/todo/php60
http://wiki.php.net/todo/backlog
yeah, I know there is other stuff, I was just listing a few examples of
things I remembered. Both lists require some
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
As for unicode, I would like the next release to be planned
independently of finding a solution for unicode, but with the clear
option that it will be included if we find a good solution in time
(like I said I think it
On 2010-03-18, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
I do agree that we need to do major releases more often, but just
setting a time already feels wrong. It's still open source, so it's
ready when it is ready. That of
I propose that sort of a
unicode working group forms but much less formal than what I make it
sound like. I think the discussions can remain on internals@ and
hopefully alternative approaches will be documented as RFCs. But what
I mean with working group is a list of a handful of names who feel
On 18.03.2010, at 18:48, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
On 2010-03-18, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net
wrote:
I do agree that we need to do major releases more often, but just
setting a time already feels wrong.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.orgwrote:
On 18.03.2010, at 18:48, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
On 2010-03-18, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
I do agree that we
On Thursday 18 March 2010 10:05:39 pm Eric Stewart wrote:
+1 For shorter release cycles. Shorter release cycles could also allow us
to move major releases immediately to bug and security fixes only. I've
never been a fan of seeing additional features added in minor releases.
It's confusing
Zitat von Johannes Schlüter johan...@php.net:
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 22:13 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 16.03.2010, at 16:58, Derick Rethans wrote:
Before we add features, they need to be discussed whether we want to
have them. As version name for it I would like to use trunk-dev (and
On 17 March 2010 16:50, Jan Schneider j...@horde.org wrote:
How about 5.3.99? A lot of projects use this for pre-releases, but it still
might make sense.
I'm wary of sticking with anything starting with 5.3 if we're going to
break binary compatibility on the new trunk (which we presumably are)
On 03/16/2010 07:13 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
+ merge php-fpm branch?
Can't see why not. Is there an RFC for this?
No, there are no RFCs on that.
Just copy sapi/fpm to 5_4 and you've merged it.
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
---
http://pinba.org - realtime statistics for PHP
--
PHP Internals - PHP
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Antony Dovgal t...@daylessday.org wrote:
On 03/16/2010 07:13 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
+ merge php-fpm branch?
Can't see why not. Is there an RFC for this?
No, there are no RFCs on that.
Just copy sapi/fpm to 5_4 and you've merged it.
There is no 5.4
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Does that mean you want to take up a
- strict RFC-and-after-3months-discussion-before-commit policy
(i.e. killing the scratching-an-itch spirit of PHP)
- I'm going to commit this patch tomorrow mail to internals@
(i.e. killing I
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 22:12, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
On 16.03.2010, at 19:23, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
You didn't even list the mbstring patch.. that was discussed and as
far as I remember everyone thought it was great idea, just not in a
stable branch.
Is this tone
-Original Message-
From: Antony Dovgal [mailto:t...@daylessday.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:25 AM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 branch and trunk
On 03/16/2010 07:13 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
+ merge php-fpm branch?
Can't see why
Hello,
I've just renamed the 5.4 branch to THE_5_4_THAT_ISNT_5_4 and moved
trunk to the branch FIRST_UNICODE_IMPLEMENTATION.
The next things to do is to re-create trunk from PHP 5.3; I've hold off
that for now, but I'd like to do the following soon:
- Declare 5.2 security fixes only
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Derick Rethans der...@derickrethans.nl
wrote:
Right now, there are the following features that I can see we should
think about:
- the new output buffering mechanism (I can not really see why we would
Am 16.03.2010 16:58, schrieb Derick Rethans:
I've just renamed the 5.4 branch to THE_5_4_THAT_ISNT_5_4 and moved
trunk to the branch FIRST_UNICODE_IMPLEMENTATION.
Why do we need THE_5_4_THAT_ISNT_5_4 and trunk? trunk should be where
the development happens. When the time comes for a release,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Sebastian Bergmann
s...@sebastian-bergmann.de wrote:
Am 16.03.2010 16:58, schrieb Derick Rethans:
I've just renamed the 5.4 branch to THE_5_4_THAT_ISNT_5_4 and moved
trunk to the branch FIRST_UNICODE_IMPLEMENTATION.
Why do we need THE_5_4_THAT_ISNT_5_4
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 17:54, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Sebastian Bergmann
s...@sebastian-bergmann.de wrote:
Am 16.03.2010 16:58, schrieb Derick Rethans:
I've just renamed the 5.4 branch to THE_5_4_THAT_ISNT_5_4 and moved
trunk to the branch
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 16:58, Derick Rethans der...@derickrethans.nl wrote:
Before we add features, they need to be discussed whether we want to
have them.
Does that mean you want to take up a
- strict RFC-and-after-3months-discussion-before-commit policy
(i.e. killing the
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 19:11 +0300, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
+ merge php-fpm branch?
If we get a trunk which will be released in a foreseeable timeframe we
don't need to merge this to 5.3 anymore, which had been an old plan.
Tony, do you agree?
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
On 03/16/2010 11:00 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 19:11 +0300, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
+ merge php-fpm branch?
If we get a trunk which will be released in a foreseeable timeframe we
don't need to merge this to 5.3 anymore, which had been an old plan.
Tony, do you
Hi!
Does that mean you want to take up a
- strict RFC-and-after-3months-discussion-before-commit policy
(i.e. killing the scratching-an-itch spirit of PHP)
- I'm going to commit this patch tomorrow mail to internals@
(i.e. killing I need this functionality, maybe others do to spirit
On 16.03.2010, at 19:23, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 16:58, Derick Rethans der...@derickrethans.nl wrote:
Before we add features, they need to be discussed whether we want to
have them.
Does that mean you want to take up a
- strict
On 16.03.2010, at 16:58, Derick Rethans wrote:
Before we add features, they need to be discussed whether we want to
have them. As version name for it I would like to use trunk-dev (and
not 5.4-dev or 6.0-dev) as we're not quite sure where this is moving.
Right now, there are the following
On 16.03.2010, at 16:58, Derick Rethans wrote:
I've just renamed the 5.4 branch to THE_5_4_THAT_ISNT_5_4 and moved
Eventually it should be deleted, if it helps at all in merging the OB change
then it should be kept until that happens, otherwise it can be deleted now
imho. The new 5.3 based
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 22:13 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 16.03.2010, at 16:58, Derick Rethans wrote:
Before we add features, they need to be discussed whether we want to
have them. As version name for it I would like to use trunk-dev (and
not 5.4-dev or 6.0-dev) as we're not quite
35 matches
Mail list logo
