On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:28, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 7/11/11 4:20 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
>>
>> I agree, it would make more sense to have the votings over before
>> doing the next Alpha, so theres time to cook up relevant patches and
>> commit them.
>
> Well, OK, let's say we d
Hi!
On 7/11/11 4:20 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
I agree, it would make more sense to have the votings over before
doing the next Alpha, so theres time to cook up relevant patches and
commit them.
Well, OK, let's say we delay a week. Vote closes on 16th, and I'd have
to pack on 20th, so we
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 7/11/11 4:16 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> I would rather wait the 2nd wave of RFCs to be adopted/rejected before
>> doing a2, if some has no patch (or far to be ready) or too risky (the
>> int/string/float looks like one to me) sho
Hi!
On 7/11/11 4:16 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
I would rather wait the 2nd wave of RFCs to be adopted/rejected before
doing a2, if some has no patch (or far to be ready) or too risky (the
int/string/float looks like one to me) should be dropped and delayed
to the next release.
Why delay? RFCs are
Hi
2011/7/12 Pierre Joye :
> hi,
>
> I would rather wait the 2nd wave of RFCs to be adopted/rejected before
> doing a2, if some has no patch (or far to be ready) or too risky (the
> int/string/float looks like one to me) should be dropped and delayed
> to the next release.
I agree, it would make
hi,
I would rather wait the 2nd wave of RFCs to be adopted/rejected before
doing a2, if some has no patch (or far to be ready) or too risky (the
int/string/float looks like one to me) should be dropped and delayed
to the next release.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
Hi!
I'm planning to do 5.4 alpha 2 on 14th (Thursday this week), so if
anybody has anything urgent for it or any comments/requests, please talk
to me ASAP.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Develo
> AFAIK that got into it, but the fixes for the related crashes did not.
Nope, not until alpha2... but it's something to look forward to, and it's
another reason for people to continue testing future alpha releases. :)
Regards,
Philip
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To u
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/11 11:35 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>> > wasn't the alpha1 packaged in the last second?
>> > it was packaged on Jun 19, and it was planned to be released on Jun 20.
>> > and it did includ
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> On 6/28/11 11:35 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > wasn't the alpha1 packaged in the last second?
> > it was packaged on Jun 19, and it was planned to be released on Jun 20.
> > and it did include obvious bugs.
>
> No, it was not. It was checked, ensured it
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Hannes Magnusson
wrote:
> Hang on.. wait what?
> So Pierres weird threats on IRC weren't silly jokes?
>
> Heck, we could apt-get install bugzilla on a random mirror if you just
> want some bug tracker database to ignore and "have something".
Hannes, with all res
> Hang on.. wait what?
> So Pierres weird threats on IRC weren't silly jokes?
>
> Heck, we could apt-get install bugzilla on a random mirror if you just
> want some bug tracker database to ignore and "have something".
>
merging the new bugs would be a little more work though.
and it would be weird
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 21:59, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 6/28/11 12:49 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 21:00, Stas Malyshev
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> final release. The point of alpha is not to provide a stable platform but
>>> initial point for the release and flush out
Hi!
On 6/28/11 12:49 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 21:00, Stas Malyshev wrote:
final release. The point of alpha is not to provide a stable platform but
initial point for the release and flush out bugs by expanding the user base.
It's not a production release.
Exactly.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 21:00, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> final release. The point of alpha is not to provide a stable platform but
> initial point for the release and flush out bugs by expanding the user base.
> It's not a production release.
Exactly. Requiring a working bug tracker.
Postponing the
Hi!
On 6/28/11 11:35 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
wasn't the alpha1 packaged in the last second?
it was packaged on Jun 19, and it was planned to be released on Jun 20.
and it did include obvious bugs.
No, it was not. It was checked, ensured it builds on all systems I have
access too, etc, and it
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:25 PM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> On 2011-06-28, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 6/28/11 10:43 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>> I do think we should repackage. There are many issues fixed since last
>>> week and it makes no sense to release something not representing what
On 2011-06-28, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 6/28/11 10:43 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> I do think we should repackage. There are many issues fixed since last
>> week and it makes no sense to release something not representing what
>> the current 5.4 branch is.
>
> Really, guys, if we ever want t
On June-28-11 2:06 PM Stas Malyshev wrote:
> On 6/28/11 10:43 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> > I do think we should repackage. There are many issues fixed since
> > last week and it makes no sense to release something not representing
> > what the current 5.4 branch is.
>
> Really, guys, if we ever wa
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 6/28/11 10:43 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> I do think we should repackage. There are many issues fixed since last
>> week and it makes no sense to release something not representing what
>> the current 5.4 branch is.
>
> Really, gu
Hi!
On 6/28/11 10:43 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
I do think we should repackage. There are many issues fixed since last
week and it makes no sense to release something not representing what
the current 5.4 branch is.
Really, guys, if we ever want to have scheduled and orderly releases,
changing re
On 06/28/2011 10:43 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
We'll have alpha2 in a month. I'm really not a fan on last minute
repackaging, that's when screw ups happen almost every time.
I do think we should repackage. There are many issues fixed since
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Also, it's important to clarify that the [soon-to-be-popular]
>> built-in web server is not part of this alpha because the alpha was
>> tagged a few days before its addition. I think repackaging would be
>> worth it for this case, bu
Hi!
Also, it's important to clarify that the [soon-to-be-popular]
built-in web server is not part of this alpha because the alpha was
tagged a few days before its addition. I think repackaging would be
worth it for this case, but waiting for alpha2 is feasible.
We'll have alpha2 in a month. I'
On Jun 28, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 6/28/11 9:55 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>
>> I'm actually surprised it isn't in there. I did write that document
>> some eons ago. But anyway, let's add it then :)
>
> OK, as soon as we
Hi!
On 6/28/11 9:55 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
I'm actually surprised it isn't in there. I did write that document
some eons ago. But anyway, let's add it then :)
OK, as soon as we are all agreed on Thursday and it's there I'll shift
the schedule for
hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Hannes Magnusson
wrote:
> Little preference?
>
> According http://www.php.net/releases/
>
>
> array(4) {
> ["Thursday"]=>
> int(30)
> ["Tuesday"]=>
> int(3)
> ["Monday"]=>
> int(3)
> ["Wednesday"]=>
> int(1)
> }
So Thursday was the big preference, we
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > I would also like to point out that Thursday is our general release day,
> > and we have a release process described in detail here:
> > http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/trunk/README.RELEASE_PROCESS?revision=311614&view=markup
>
> It doesn't say
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 18:45, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>>> I would also like to point out that Thursday is our general release day,
>>> and we have a release process described in detail here:
>>>
>>> http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/trunk/
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> I would also like to point out that Thursday is our general release day,
>> and we have a release process described in detail here:
>>
>> http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/trunk/README.RELEASE_PROCESS?revision=311614&view=markup
>
> It
Hi!
I would also like to point out that Thursday is our general release day,
and we have a release process described in detail here:
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/trunk/README.RELEASE_PROCESS?revision=311614&view=markup
It doesn't say there Thursday is our general release day. If we wa
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Since we've got voting on the process RFCs finally going on, after much
> deliberation we've decided it'd be best to let the votes finish before the
> first official 5.4 release. Thus, we decided to postpone 5.4 alpha 1 until
> June 28th (next Tuesday).
Hi!
Since we've got voting on the process RFCs finally going on, after much
deliberation we've decided it'd be best to let the votes finish before
the first official 5.4 release. Thus, we decided to postpone 5.4 alpha 1
until June 28th (next Tuesday). The updated schedule is at
https://wiki.p
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
2010/8/10 Johannes Schlüter
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:20 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Is LTS really something we need to provide? Seems to me like this is
something the linux vendors take care of for the most part. Of course
this leaves windows, OSX (and maybe some oth
On Tue, Aug 10 2010, Derick Rethans wrote
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
>
> > With the recent additions to 5.4, aren't we getting closer to have a
> > public alpha release, or just a development test as we have many
> great
> > additions and changes to the current trunk or at
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:14 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:20 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > > Is LTS really something we need to provide? Seems to me like this is
> > > something the linux vendors take care of for t
2010/8/10 Derick Rethans
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:20 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > > Is LTS really something we need to provide? Seems to me like this is
> > > something the linux vendors take care of for the most part. Of course
> > > t
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:20 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > Is LTS really something we need to provide? Seems to me like this is
> > something the linux vendors take care of for the most part. Of course
> > this leaves windows, OSX (and maybe som
2010/8/10 Johannes Schlüter
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:20 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > Is LTS really something we need to provide? Seems to me like this is
> > something the linux vendors take care of for the most part. Of course
> > this leaves windows, OSX (and maybe some others).
>
> We
On 10.08.2010, at 10:45, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 10:19 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
>
> Yes. Release early, release often is a good thing. What I'd also like is
> to have a Ubuntu-like support model. Where we have one LTS (long term
> supported) version (now for instance 5.
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:20 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Is LTS really something we need to provide? Seems to me like this is
> something the linux vendors take care of for the most part. Of course
> this leaves windows, OSX (and maybe some others).
Well, I don't see it as loo
2010/8/10 Lukas Kahwe Smith :
>
> On 10.08.2010, at 10:45, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 10:19 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>
>> Yes. Release early, release often is a good thing. What I'd also like is
>> to have a Ubuntu-like support model. Where we have one LTS (long term
>> s
2010/8/10 Derick Rethans :
> That's exactly what we have now: 5.2, 5.3 and trunk. I think your LTS
> idea is way too optimistic. I really don't care about porting bug fixes
> back to 5.2 because it is *four* years old. PHP 5.3 has been out for a
> year. Right now there are not many API differences,
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> With the recent additions to 5.4, aren't we getting closer to have a
> public alpha release, or just a development test as we have many great
> additions and changes to the current trunk or atleast set up some sort
> of roadmap for what we all l
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> So we'd always have three branches, while two only receive bug fixes,
> plus one branch for the next milestone.
That's exactly what we have now: 5.2, 5.3 and trunk. I think your LTS
idea is way too optimistic. I really don't care about porting bug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/10/2010 11:47 AM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:38, Matti Bickel wrote:
>>
>> As an PHP developer: Providing manuals based on version sounds like a
>> good idea. But I'm not sure about the amount of additional work involve
2010/8/10 Johannes Schlüter :
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 17:25 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> – The LTS branch is going to become more and more difficult to
>> backport fixes to as it diverges from the other two branches, and I
>> can see developers not bothering after a certain point, which may be
>> c
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:38, Matti Bickel wrote:
>
> As an PHP developer: Providing manuals based on version sounds like a
> good idea. But I'm not sure about the amount of additional work involved
> and the willingness of docs contributors to do this..
Thats a heckofamore work then we have man
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 17:25 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
> – The LTS branch is going to become more and more difficult to
> backport fixes to as it diverges from the other two branches, and I
> can see developers not bothering after a certain point, which may be
> counter productive.
Except for thing
hi,
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> On 10 August 2010 07:28, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
>>> With the recent additions to 5.4, aren't we getting closer to have a
>>> public alpha release, or just a development test as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/10/2010 11:25 AM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> We might end up needing
> to rethink how we structure the manual by looking at something like
> the Python approach of having separate manuals for separate versions,
> which would require a not-insignificant
2010/8/10 Johannes Schlüter :
> Yes. Release early, release often is a good thing. What I'd also like is
> to have a Ubuntu-like support model. Where we have one LTS (long term
> supported) version (now for instance 5.3) which will get bug fixes for
> quite some time and an "early access" version (
>
>
> So we'd always have three branches, while two only receive bug fixes,
> plus one branch for the next milestone.
>
> johannes
>
>
+1 for the new release cycle, and +1 for making 5.3 for the next LTS.
Tyrael
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
So we'd always have three branches, while two only receive bug fixes,
> plus one branch for the next milestone.
+1
And currently 5.2.x is still the preferred base as there is still a lot of third
party stuff that has to make the transition to 5.3.x ... Pushing new
Am 10.08.2010 10:45, schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
> So we'd always have three branches, while two only receive bug fixes,
> plus one branch for the next milestone.
+1
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 10:19 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
> I could not disagree more. I think one of the key lessons we should
> have learned out of the whole 6.0 saga was that "release early,
> release often" is a good thing
I will no support the release of trunk overly actively as long as the
"type
On 10 August 2010 07:28, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
>> With the recent additions to 5.4, aren't we getting closer to have a
>> public alpha release, or just a development test as we have many great
>> additions and changes to the current trun
http://news.php.net/php.internals/49186
I hope 5.4 beta complete support LFS.
-邮件原件-
发件人: kalle@gmail.com [mailto:kalle@gmail.com] 代表 Kalle Sommer
Nielsen
发送时间: 2010年8月10日 5:56
收件人: Internals
主题: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 Alpha?
Greetings geeks
With the recent additions to 5.4, aren'
hi,
Huge -1 here.
We are light years away to even be able to define what will be
php-next. Let discuss that September, at the soonest.
Cheers,
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Greetings geeks
>
> With the recent additions to 5.4, aren't we getting closer to have a
Greetings geeks
With the recent additions to 5.4, aren't we getting closer to have a
public alpha release, or just a development test as we have many great
additions and changes to the current trunk or atleast set up some sort
of roadmap for what we all like to have in 5.4, or be that 6.0 as
thats
60 matches
Mail list logo
