I can hardly believe this conversation has gone the way it has ... I'm only happy the release managers are the ones to make the decision, and have no reason to distrust their judgement.
Can we get a release manager to start saying reasonable things please ... Cheers Joe On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Phil Sturgeon <pjsturg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> > wrote: > > 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 > > > > Sorry to pop by here but Zeev and Rasmus are saying some things in > general that I strongly disagree with. I was going to just carry on > with my day after mentioning my concerns on Twitter, but I was asked > to raise them in here as well. Here goes. > > Firstly, Zeev: "7.0.0 is a lot more about getting people to start > paying attention to 7.0 and start testing their codebase against it " > > This is absolutely not at all what a final release is for. Whilst > nobody expects a major final release to be 100% bug free (no software > is), knowing about a bug and saying "meh whatever let those nerds find > out what broke later" is just not ok. Not ok at all. > > Fix bugs as they come up, absolutely - that's how we all do > open-source - but don't just shout YOLO and ship it anyway, especially > when folks like Anthony are saying they think it's a concern. Nobody > replied here saying "I don't think this bug is going to be an issue in > the wild because X", you just replied saying "Who cares". > > Rasmus, with all due respect, I think you work in a slightly different > realm of reality to a huge number of PHP developers. To say "This is a > .0.0 release. Nobody is going to take a .0.0 and push it straight to > production." is very very very inaccurate of many developers > realities. That's like Apple saying "Who gives a shit if we ship El > Capitan with known bugs, it's not like people upgrade when it comes > out." shortly before their upgrade servers go down because 90% of > Macbook owners try to upgrade immediately. > > I know a fair few people - like myself - hold off due to concern of > bugs being there for a while, and many people wait for a patch, but to > say those who will upgrade quickly are statistically insignificant is > completely and entirely false. > > People might think that hosts will barely even have PHP 7.0.X ready > before 7.0.1 is out, but they are unfortunately ignorant of the speed > in which hosts these days offer new versions. I get PR requests to > http://phpversions.info/php-7/ before I see the PHP.net announcement > emails half the time, and the other half are <48 hours after. Hosts > upgrade quickly these days, so you can't use their previously > snail-like pace as an argument for shipping broken stuff and hoping > nobody will use it. > > > If you folks want to have a conversation about the impact and > significance of this specific bug then that's cool; I defer to Anthony > and others smarter than myself for that. I just ask that you please > please please don't use those "YOLO F**K IT WHO CARES" arguments > you've used above. They're not accurate of the community and they make > the project seem reckless and laughable. > > > tl:dr; .0.0 is not a RC. > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
