hi Rasmus, On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote:
> 1. Should we work up a basic PEAR test case that we can add to our > tests? > > 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP > frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs > and just hope someone will test and report back, but that obviously > isn't working. We need a Daniel Brown-like approach to this. Someone > who is really annoyingly persistent and will hunt down people to > test RCs and keep a sign-off checklist of projects that have given > a thumbs-up on an RC. We do 2) already (while we are working on increasing the amount of apps and frameworks being tested), as I was asking to revert this patch between 5.3.7 and 5.3.8 back then pointing to our tests results and numerous reports. The problem was not in the QA but in the decision process. QA should have a kind of veto power in this case to avoid arguing and still have BC breaks landing in stable releases. > Oh, and what do we do in 5.4? Philosophically I think Dmitry's original > change was correct, but none of us realized all the code relying > (arguably incorrectly) on the original behaviour. It is not an easy decision, I would prefer to revert it there too as it will break BC in 5.4 as well, obviously. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
