Hi Andi,
On 9/13/05, Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mini releases are not only for security fixes. We also do bug fixes, > and sometimes even minor functionality (like a new function) which > has very low risk of breaking anything. I don't think 5.0.5 is > different from that. As far as (http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=34468) exists and have many little brothers, I do think 5.0.5 is very different from that. > I do think we could probably be better at communicating these kind of > breakages. Question is wether we should just try harder, or if you > have some other concrete ideas which would be easy to implement and stick to? The implementation is fine, a bug is fixed (whether I had it or not does not matter ;). About trying harder, I will say trying, not bettter, harder, but only trying. My plan before 4.4.0 and 5.1 releases was about being more carefull. Not like I did not say anything or tried to convince those "STFU" people to do so. The steps: - Do not mix security fixes and BC breaks, this is the worst thing one can do. - Do not move from no warning to a fatal error without an intermediate version. For example, 5.0.5 will only raise notices, 5.0.6 and up will have the required behaviors. - In any case, it should be wroten in a prominent place both in Changelog and in the announce text. For example, the 5.0.5 announce only tells that XML_RPC has a security problem, was it on purpose? bad joke? 4.4.0 for that matter was better than 5.0.5. At least it does not always die. But the announcements, communications, or any other normal actions are simply bad, the answers to the bugs report being the worst. So yes, I have had better solutions (from a user point of view), but as you said, it is now too late anyway. But I do not consider that S'ingTFU will help us to be better :-) Regards, --Pierre -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
