>Which roadmap are you referring to? ... doesn't mention anything about PHP5 >hacks, only removing PHP4 hacks,
I meant PHP4 hacks. It was a typo, sorry. > incremental upgrades defeats the purpose of a major version > number change. If it is possible to decouple some of the new development items from the "major rework", it might be best to release that new development first, as a early release. eg. the PHPUnit-based testing framework. > If they were going to continue with incremental > upgrades to 1.x, then it wouldn't make sense to call it CakePHP 2.x. You can call it whatever you like. Not to harp on an example, but the difference between a 1.3 based on php4, and a new release which is php5 only and has a totally new testing framework based on PHPUnit, is still a fairly major incremental piece of development. It doesn't matter to me if it's called cake 1.4. > Users are already able to download 2.0 and will continue to have > access to the latest builds so that they can try the latest features > (on a development/test server of course) and give feedback to the > developers. One cannot compare the user adoption rate you'd get with development releases, with what you'd get if there were smaller and frequent production quality releases. Assuming (perhaps this assumption is incorrect, maybe so) one can decouple significant portions of new development so they can be released earlier as quality production releases, I don't see the benefit in releasing a "big bang". On Jun 13, 6:39 pm, calvin <cal...@rottenrecords.com> wrote: > Which roadmap are you referring to? The one I'm looking at (http:// > cakephp.lighthouseapp.com/projects/42648/2-0-development-roadmap) > doesn't mention anything about PHP5 hacks, only removing PHP4 hacks, > which is pretty reasonable since people have had nearly 6 years to > upgrade to PHP5, and the PHP Group itself has long since stopped > supporting PHP4. > > Also, incremental upgrades defeats the purpose of a major version > number change. If they were going to continue with incremental > upgrades to 1.x, then it wouldn't make sense to call it CakePHP 2.x. > There are also some thing which can't be changed/added with > incremental upgrades. And if the framework is going to be majorly > reworked, it's best to do it in one release than to make users > repeatedly upgrade and rewrite their application(s). > > Users are already able to download 2.0 and will continue to have > access to the latest builds so that they can try the latest features > (on a development/test server of course) and give feedback to the > developers. That's one of the benefits of open source and using a > public repository. > > For major framework changes, the migration guide will assist users in > migrating their code over to 2.0. For instance, the current migration > guide explains that if you don't want to use PHPUnit, you can continue > to use SimpleTest by replacing related files. And part of announcing > the development roadmap early on is to allow users and the developers > to plan ahead and prepare for the upcoming framework changes. Features > that are being removed or replaced can be marked as deprecated in > upcoming 1.x releases to give developers time to change their code. > So if you're using 1.3 right now and are removing the use of > deprecated methods from your application, you'll be prepared for the > 2.0 migration. And for those that still don't want to go through the > hassle of rewriting their live applications, they can simply go on > using 1.x, which will still be supported concurrently with 2.0. > > On Jun 13, 3:02 am, keymaster <ad...@optionosophy.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Please don't throw eggs, but.. > > > ...after looking over the 2.0 roadmap, I am wondering about the > > relative benefit of major "shock and awe" releases vs. the > > continuation of the successful 1.x pattern of smaller, but still > > significant, incremental releases (where applicable). > > > I am a tad concerned the 2.0 roadmap might be taking on too much for > > one release. > > > In particular, I am wondering if there is any remote possibility for > > the development team to consider the division of 2.0 into a series of > > smaller releases, rather than a whopping "grand 2.0" one shot > > delivery? > > > For example (just an example), might it be feasable to release a 2.0 > > with the only new PHPUnit testing framework, on a php5-only base? > > > People can use it to start writing their new tests, migrating their > > old ones, in parallel with 2.1 development. > > > Over the next few releases, there can be a phase in of the rest of > > lazy loading, removal of PHP5 hacks, E_STRICT compliance, interfaces/ > > abstract classes/exceptions , etc. > > > This will enable quicker deployment of new features to the community, > > and as a result engender quicker feedback to the developers through > > more parallel usage of the releases. It somewhat derisks things, and > > keeps the ball moving. > > > Comments? Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://cakeqs.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
