Date: 03/21/01
- Next message: sniper <email protected>: "[PHP-DEV] PHP 4.0 Bug #9898 Updated: gd and mck fail to link but did in 4.0.4pl1"
- Previous message: Björn Schotte: "[PHP-DEV] is_reference() ?"
- In reply to: Jason Greene: "Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php4(PHP_4_0_5) /sapi/fastcgi"
- Next in thread: Andi Gutmans: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php4(PHP_4_0_5) /sapi/fastcgi"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 22:19 21/3/2001, Jason Greene wrote:
>If the exception policy was in place here are some questions of thought:
>What would be necessary to make it safe to php in a whole?
I'd say that a module that has no effect on building PHP is fine to add as
an experimental module. The only reason I believe we need at least one RC
afterwards, is to ensure that trivial problems weren't introduced (mostly,
a broken build).
>What should the requirements be to allow this to happen ( ex. a lot of
>user demand, replaces something considered unstable) ?
I think that these are the same requirements for any other module that we
decide to admit to the tree. Since it's not a big deal, if it belongs in
the PHP 4.0 tree, then it's ok to add it whilst in RC's.
>Should this require any re-testing?
>Should this require x amount of RCs to follow and how many?
IMHO, one more RC.
>Should there be a vote on whether or not to allow the module in?
We don't have a body with 'jurisdiction' other than the PHP Group, so I'd
say no; Whatever loose guidelines we use today to admit new modules can
apply here as well.
>Is this module something that should first be released as an add-on?
>
>I honestly agree with both positions on this one, and I think good can
>come from both of them : )
I think that by saying you agree with both positions you attribute to me
things that I didn't say :) I'm all in favour of a stable release
process. I'm not in favour in considering the release process guidelines
as 'holy', and if I or anybody else thinks they can be improved, the right
step would be to raise it for discussion. As I said to Hartmut, the minute
bureaucracy becomes sacred, you know you're doing something wrong. I
considered the fact that the release process did not account for new
experimental modules a limitation of the release process. Even the US
constitution required a few amendments before they got it right :)
Zeev
-- Zeev Suraski <zeev <email protected>> CTO & co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/-- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-dev-unsubscribe <email protected> For additional commands, e-mail: php-dev-help <email protected> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin <email protected>
- Next message: sniper <email protected>: "[PHP-DEV] PHP 4.0 Bug #9898 Updated: gd and mck fail to link but did in 4.0.4pl1"
- Previous message: Björn Schotte: "[PHP-DEV] is_reference() ?"
- In reply to: Jason Greene: "Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php4(PHP_4_0_5) /sapi/fastcgi"
- Next in thread: Andi Gutmans: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php4(PHP_4_0_5) /sapi/fastcgi"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

