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
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 months you're
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). There are always cries
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 hard time
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 whilst HEAD
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 then
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 releasing 4.1.0
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 because it's
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
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 a
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
]
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 have a bit of a dilemma here. As you all know, the 4.0.7 branch, on
which 4.1.0
13 matches
Mail list logo
