On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
We do not have this clue in master and there are for sure non
acceptable BC breaks in master. They won't be in 5.5. I'd said before,
Why
Based on our recent discussion on #pecl , I'd like we clarify what we
think is a BCB (Backward Compatibility Break) as well as what only
minor BC breaks could mean.
Stas' recent topic on internals On BC and interfaces may serve as a
reflection basis.
As our release process told us that we should
2012/9/10 jpauli jpa...@php.net:
Based on our recent discussion on #pecl , I'd like we clarify what we
think is a BCB (Backward Compatibility Break) as well as what only
minor BC breaks could mean.
Stas' recent topic on internals On BC and interfaces may serve as a
reflection basis.
As our
hi,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, jpauli jpa...@php.net wrote:
Based on our recent discussion on #pecl , I'd like we clarify what we
think is a BCB (Backward Compatibility Break) as well as what only
minor BC breaks could mean.
Change in phpinfo related stuff are minor. Adding a notice or
Pierre,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, jpauli jpa...@php.net wrote:
Based on our recent discussion on #pecl , I'd like we clarify what we
think is a BCB (Backward Compatibility Break) as well as what only
hi,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Pierre,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, jpauli jpa...@php.net wrote:
Based on our recent discussion on #pecl , I'd like we clarify
Pierre,
it does not break code, also that happens only and only from 5.x to
5.x+1 and should not happen from 5.x.y to 5.x.y+1 for example (or on
very rare cases).
I agree it should not happen from 5.x.y to 5.x.y+1. But it definitely does
break code... Not all, but at least some...
I
On 09/10/2012 12:00 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
I chose it for that specific reason. The line is blurry if taken literally
(which many do)...
It can't possibly be an absolute rule. If you take it completely
literally then we wouldn't be able to fix bugs either. Every change has
some effect that
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 09/10/2012 12:00 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
I chose it for that specific reason. The line is blurry if taken literally
(which many do)...
It can't possibly be an absolute rule. If you take it completely
literally
Hi!
That's more about internals APIs, which is not what is meant in the
release RFCs for x.y+1 releases.
The idea though wasn't about internals APIs. The idea was that for users
it's better to have platform that they can expect to work with their
code 10 years after than to have a platform
Hi!
Based on our recent discussion on #pecl , I'd like we clarify what we
think is a BCB (Backward Compatibility Break) as well as what only
minor BC breaks could mean.
Stas' recent topic on internals On BC and interfaces may serve as a
reflection basis.
As our release process told us that
Hi!
Change in phpinfo related stuff are minor. Adding a notice or warning
is minor or irrelevant. Changing return values (like suddenly
I'm not sure I agree about warning/notice. Depends if it's a clear bug -
either in our code (like, opening non-existing file produces warning but
opening it
Hi!
This is concerning me a bit. Does this mean that PHP 5.5 will be
branched off PHP 5.4 and we will then backport features from master?
If so, this would seem like a Very Bad Idea to me, from a purely
technical point of view. Unless I'm much mistaken this would have to
I think also it's
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Based on our recent discussion on #pecl , I'd like we clarify what we
think is a BCB (Backward Compatibility Break) as well as what only
minor BC breaks could mean.
Stas' recent topic on internals On BC and
hi,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
a) The current releaseprocess RFC [1] says that Backward
compatibility must be kept in minor version increments (5.4 - 5.5).
Seeing the discussion above, may I rephrase this to Only minor
backwards compatibility
Hi!
We do not have this clue in master and there are for sure non
acceptable BC breaks in master. They won't be in 5.5. I'd said before,
Why don't we have a clue? We definitely do have a clue, we have git logs
and we know what went into master - it is not that old. Could you list
the
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
We do not have this clue in master and there are for sure non
acceptable BC breaks in master. They won't be in 5.5. I'd said before,
Why don't we have a clue? We definitely do have a clue, we have git logs
and
17 matches
Mail list logo
