IMO, it makes sense to fold EXPERIMENTAL and CREDITS files into the
package.xml files that Hartmut added; they provide versioning and
status information.
Non-BC API changes require a bump to the API major number; a new major
in alpha or beta implies that the new API is subject to change until
it
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
At last weekend's EuroFoo [1] I attended Marc-Andre Lemburg's talk [2]
on the Python development process.
I really wish we had a process similar to Python's PEPs [3] [4] for
PHP.
Having guidelines for issues like adding a new module [5] or
On 27.8.2004 8:59 Uhr, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
At last weekend's EuroFoo [1] I attended Marc-Andre Lemburg's talk [2]
on the Python development process.
I really wish we had a process similar to Python's PEPs [3] [4] for
PHP.
Having guidelines for
Derick Rethans wrote:
What is wrong with how we currently do it?
We have currently nothing like it. Or if we do, I haven't notices it in
the last couple of years. And if I haven't, chances are that our users
haven't either :-)
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I would like to get some feedback about my suggestion to move away from the
simple 'experimental' status and dividing it into two - quality rating, and
'API subject to change' tagging. Does this make sense to anybody else?
yes, sounds much better than
Christian Stocker wrote:
Actually, other people i talk to are always impressed, how this
chaotic, based-on-common-agreement developement process actually works
at all ;)
Well, one reason might be no matter how fuzzy the process
there are some very clear metrics for the result, like
e.g.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Christian Stocker wrote:
Actually, other people i talk to are always impressed, how this
chaotic, based-on-common-agreement developement process actually works
at all ;)
Well, one reason might be no matter how fuzzy the process
there are
On 27.8.2004 9:58 Uhr, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Christian Stocker wrote:
Actually, other people i talk to are always impressed, how this
chaotic, based-on-common-agreement developement process actually
works at all ;)
Well, one reason might be no matter how fuzzy the process
there are some
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:11:58 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
What is wrong with how we currently do it?
We have currently nothing like it. Or if we do, I haven't notices it in
the last couple of years. And if I haven't, chances are that our users
On August 27, 2004 03:26 am, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Me too.
I would like to get some feedback about my suggestion to move away from the
simple 'experimental' status and dividing it into two - quality rating, and
'API subject to change' tagging. Does this make sense to anybody else?
As long as
Hello Zeev,
Makes sense to me.
--
Best regards,
Jasonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friday, August 27, 2004, 3:26:25 AM, you wrote:
ZS I would like to get some feedback about my suggestion to move away from the
ZS simple 'experimental' status and dividing it into two
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I would like to get some feedback about my suggestion to move away from the
simple 'experimental' status and dividing it into two - quality rating, and
'API subject to change' tagging. Does this make sense to anybody
Derick Rethans wrote:
Aren't PECL package version numbers already providing this?
But not everything is in PECL :)
any bundled extensions that are still EXPERIMENTAL should
move to PECL anyway IMHO
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
On August 27, 2004 11:31 am, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
Aren't PECL package version numbers already providing this?
But not everything is in PECL :)
any bundled extensions that are still EXPERIMENTAL should
move to PECL anyway IMHO
+1
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP
At 18:33 27/08/2004, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On August 27, 2004 11:31 am, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
Aren't PECL package version numbers already providing this?
But not everything is in PECL :)
any bundled extensions that are still EXPERIMENTAL should
move to PECL
On 27.8.2004 20:23 Uhr, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 18:33 27/08/2004, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On August 27, 2004 11:31 am, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
Aren't PECL package version numbers already providing this?
But not everything is in PECL :)
any bundled extensions that
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
At last weekend's EuroFoo [1] I attended Marc-Andre Lemburg's talk [2]
on the Python development process.
I really wish we had a process similar to Python's PEPs [3] [4] for PHP.
Having guidelines for issues like adding a new module [5]
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
It smells a little too processy to me, but I wouldn't mind a system
that borrowed some of the ideas.
That is exactly why chose Learning ... and not Adopting ... :-)
We should have a look at it and see for ourselves what could work for
us.
Like a single collection point
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
At last weekend's EuroFoo [1] I attended Marc-Andre Lemburg's talk [2]
on the Python development process.
I really wish we had a process similar to Python's PEPs [3] [4] for PHP.
Having guidelines for issues like adding a
19 matches
Mail list logo
