On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:10 PM Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:17 AM Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > - in the near future (by mid January) fork PHP-8 and start active > > development there. Keep PHP-7.4 development in master, and don't require > > committers to merge into PHP-8, but restrict PHP-7.4 for minor changes > > or features that won't significantly affect PHP-8 branch. > > > > - in May/June move master into PHP-7.4, make PHP-8 to be master and > > require committers to work on master and backport changes (according to > > usual PHP/GIT workflow). > > > If fixes are not required to be merged to PHP-8, then how do we ensure > that those fixes (especially the security ones) will still be in > effect when 8.0 is released? > Changes are still merged into 8.0. It's just not the responsibility of the individual contributor to merge every single commit as it is made. Instead the people working on the PHP 8 branch perform merges as needed. E.g. Dmitry has been maintaining a JIT branch for many years now, by semi-regularly merging current master into it. Basically just the way a standard long-term feature branch works. > To target typed-properties or other significant changes to PHP-7.4, it's > > better to commit them before PHP-8 branching. > > > How will that impact deprecations? Are we calling those "not > significant"? I'd actually say yeah since they tend to take the form > of a few lines of "stop doing this". I do worry about our ability to > pull a deprecations list together by January though. > Deprecations have to go into 7.4, there's no other option there. Creating a PHP 8 feature branch does not mean that changes (even language changes) can't be applied to PHP 7.4. It may be slightly more convenient if large changes like typed properties land before branching, but it's not a hard requirement. FTR; This feels like the worst available option. It's basically just > early branching with bad names. I'd much sooner branch PHP-7.4 in > January and have that be it. > I feel like there may be some understanding here, because what is proposed here seems to match exactly what you proposed in your first mail to this thread. Nikita
