On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, George Schlossnagle wrote: > On Mar 23, 2004, at 4:30 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > At 01:24 PM 3/23/2004 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Georg Richter wrote: > >> > Changing everything after an announced feature freeze sucks. It's > >> just > >> > ignoring others (users, authors and publishers) - a loss of face. > >> Obviously > >> > some people like this kind of policy - me not! > >> > >> I do agree with this. There is no point in announcing a freeze if you > >> turn around and change a bunch of fundamental things the next day. > >> If we > >> are really going to go back and change all these method names then I > >> think > >> the correct way to do it is to pull RC1 and let people know that we > >> discovered some things that need to be cleaned up and we will attempt > >> another freeze and RC1 at a later date. > > > > Huh? Now you're really going to confuse people. You can always have > > RC2 and more. As it is there will be enough meat to have an RC2 after > > bug fixes (things which weren't discovered before more people started > > testing the RC). > > Two RC1s would be a clusterfuck.
So call it RC2. The name is irrelevant. The important part is to let people know that there are some big code-breaking changes happening and that just because a freeze and an RC was announced nobody should count on features and functions being frozen yet.
I'm fine with an RC2 within a few days. I would do it latest on Monday.
Andi
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
