On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Good guy <xfs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/11/2015 21:10, Anatol Belski wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> it is sad to see that the discussion went in the direction it went, but >> I'm glad to have missed that being away all day and at the end of it >> realizing my mail server messed up. Please lets get the tone down and >> discuss factually! >> >> I would like to turn back to the point I was depicting in my first mail - >> the current stuff destined (including the bug fix for the sym table issue >> ofc) into the 7.NEXT looks pretty much like a set of fixes for a patch >> version. It is enough to go through the NEWS of 5.5 or 5.6 and compare to >> realize that. In aforementioned NEWS files, several bugs can be evaluated >> even as more critical as the subject caused the discussion. An accusation >> that the intention to deliver this as GA has the purpose of something bad >> has therefore just no objective base. In opposite - looking like a patch >> release is a testimony that 7.0 is ripe enough to enter the routine life >> cycle. >> >> Today, we have a set of patches that can deliver a stable 7.0.0 to the >> today's knowledge (remember also 5.x NEWS files in conjunction with this). >> I probably just repeat what I was telling - any known app compatible with >> 7.0.0 today has the tests green today. >> >> To comply with the above and the definition of stable. Now, with >> 7.0.0. The gap between 5 and 7 is big, the number of >> ported apps is small, same with the number of developers using it. How >> do we get the wheel to spin? Please think strategically. How do we get >> the 7.0.0 GA to have the gap to be the same as between some adjacent PHP5 >> minor releases? >> >> Short - one can delay. There is a group of people who wants it to be >> done. What does that mean? That means, less usage, less testing, slower bug >> discovery. Even shorter - one can release. What does that mean? That means >> that we are on the track, more apps are getting ported, more people use it, >> more bugs we fix - we are stable. >> >> Just to remind - the RC7 was caused but the exact reason that it were >> impossible and extremely bad to deliver an untested lot of various and >> partially bad issues. And that was suitable. That's why also other two >> weeks was taken. It is quite pointless to have a one week RC, because the >> feedback on that is negligible and consequently no real bugs are catched. >> It doesn't comply with the expressed intention to validate the bug fix. >> Now, it is of course the matter of the definition, but issuing one more RC >> for the bugs that are don't even stand near the cause of the RC7 doesn't >> sound like an appropriate action. Either the bugs are heavy weight and the >> fixes need to be properly tested, or they are not. Except one turns back to >> the thesis that there should be no bugs. >> >> So in the end, a solution is wanted. I don't think any opinion is allowed >> to be ignored for such a topic. So options >> >> a) release on 26th including all known bug fixes >> b) do RC8, assume there are no bugs, so target 10th for RTM >> c) do RC8, release on 3rd, expect there are no bugs come in >> d) continue issuing release candidates till it's stable enough (needs >> definition of stable and probably an RFC) >> >> I would really ask to reach a consent on either a) or c). IMO, the >> options b) and d) are the direct road to curbing 7.0.0. There is no hurry >> to release just to release, but it is definitely harmful to slow down the >> rise. >> >> Thanks >> >> Anatol >> >> >> > > when is it available from Windows binaries download site? It still says > this: > > 7 has no release <http://s13.postimg.org/t6j2b0czb/2015_11_23_2241.png> > > > http://windows.php.net/download/ > > > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > http://windows.php.net/qa -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
