I think we should be realistic about what we can and cannot pull. Using
this approach as the standard release process is simply not going to work -
we barely manage an RC branch and a dev branch properly, and having to
maintain an old release branch sync'd with bug fixes is not going to be
wi
Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> At 01:36 AM 11/14/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
> > > I didn't quite understand what you mean :)
> > > All I said was that if you create a branch say "4.1.0" and you want to
> > > release "4.1.x" from that branch later on whilst HEAD has already moved a
> > > couple of
At 01:36 AM 11/14/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
> > I didn't quite understand what you mean :)
> > All I said was that if you create a branch say "4.1.0" and you want to
> > release "4.1.x" from that branch later on whilst HEAD has already moved a
> > couple of months you're going to have a ha
Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> At 12:31 AM 11/11/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
> >Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > >
> > > Jani,
> > >
> > > I think in theory what you writes makes sense but it just doesn't work in
> > > the PHP project. (I'm talking about the minor versions coming out of
> > > branches). Th
At 05:28 12/11/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>Zeev suggested at some point
>that we should drop the last number altogether.
I *what*? Perhaps I was high on that Kossu :) I was never in favour of
dropping the 3rd digit.
> That indeed would
>make the current way of doing things more correct but
At 05:28 AM 11/12/2001 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> >I didn't quite understand what you mean :)
>
>I didn't get it first either. :)
>
> >All I said was that if you create a branch say "4.1.0" and you want to
> >release "4.1.x" from that branch later on
Guys,
I mentioned this in the conference. Version numbers aren't going to change
anything significant. If we're concerned about the users' perception of
what the version number means, moving to Jani's versioning scheme, I'm
pretty confident it'll mean less to more people. The reason being t
At 12:31 AM 11/11/2001 +0100, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
>Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >
> > Jani,
> >
> > I think in theory what you writes makes sense but it just doesn't work in
> > the PHP project. (I'm talking about the minor versions coming out of
> > branches). There are always cries to go with HEAD be
Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> >Guys,
> >
> >We have a bit of a dilemma here. As you all know, the 4.0.7 branch, on
> >which 4.1.0 is currently scheduled to be based on, has branched away a few
> >months ago. Some people have expressed concern that releas
Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> Jani,
>
> I think in theory what you writes makes sense but it just doesn't work in
> the PHP project. (I'm talking about the minor versions coming out of
> branches). There are always cries to go with HEAD because it's got new
> goodies (I think it often makes sense) and
PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 4:34 PM
>Subject: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)
>
>
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>> >Guys,
>
n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 4:34 PM
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for release process (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 4.1.0)
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> >Guys,
> >
> >We h
Jani,
I think in theory what you writes makes sense but it just doesn't work in
the PHP project. (I'm talking about the minor versions coming out of
branches). There are always cries to go with HEAD because it's got new
goodies (I think it often makes sense) and then people don't want to
rele
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>Guys,
>
>We have a bit of a dilemma here. As you all know, the 4.0.7 branch, on
>which 4.1.0 is currently scheduled to be based on, has branched away a few
>months ago. Some people have expressed concern that releasing 4.1.0 based
>on that branch is not
14 matches
Mail list logo
