On 11/22/2015 06:18 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > Zeev, > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: >> >>> On 22 בנוב׳ 2015, at 0:47, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think this is significant enough to be a blocker to gold and that we >>> should fix it prior to release. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> >> IMHO, unless we think fixing this would require breaking binary >> compatibility (which I don't think is the case) - this shouldn't block >> 7.0.0. 7.0.0 is a lot more about getting people to start paying attention >> to 7.0 and start testing their codebase against it - finding both the >> incompatibilities in their code and, undoubtedly - the bugs we failed to >> find. I wish we could say this would be the last issue we find in 7.0, but >> I think we can all agree it's wishful thinking... > > Consider that Distros may very well pick whatever we call stable for > LTS releases. Meaning that non-critical (crash/security) bugs that we > miss may wind up living on for a VERY long time. If we don't intend .0 > to be stable, then what's the point of versioning in the first place? > > Xinchen, > > Very interesting on the fix. I do think it's important for this to > land with 7, but at least we can have the discussion.
I agree with Zeev here and I had a chat with Anatol about this tonight. This is a .0.0 release. Nobody is going to take a .0.0 and push it straight to production. And it is not going to part of any sort of LTS distro either. It's not like LTS distros don't pick up point releases. There is no way we will go 2 weeks without finding something for quite a while still which can drag things out indefinitely. The question is whether this is significant enough to postpone further. Personally I don't think it is. Let's get 7.0.0 out the door and get ourselves on track for regular point releases without any of this "perfect-release" stress. -Rasmus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
