Re: Re: 4.0.5: Merge Request

At 07:35 25.4. 2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote the following: -------------------------------------------------------------- >Nobody is talking about such an illusion. Let's not lose track of what >caused this ruckus. A crash bug was found and fixed in a mainstream >extension. It was just before a release. So the release was put off for >a couple of days to get this fix in. I see absolutely nothing wrong with >this. I don't think the bug fix was the cause. It triggered the debate, but the debate had been here before, and will return eventually. I remember a very heated debate in IIRC about a year ago. A feature-freeze periods were proposed, and dismissed. I think they should (and could) be employed. I know it's not funny to clean up after oneself (or even others), but other OS projects use stricter models than PHP does, and thrive. I know you're subscribed to new-httpd@, do you think PHP group could adopt some of their policies? BTW, it's fun at times to watch new-httpd@ discussing the same things that are discussed on php-qa@ and php-dev@. (...) >release branch, but here is where I would like the QA team or someone to >step up and create a list of issues (likely just a list of bug id numbers) >that they deem to be significant issues with the release branch. It >should not be the QA team's job to track down developers and try to >convince them to fix bugs. > >eg. > >Release branch 4.0.87 > > Showstoppers: #20457, #24099 > Serious: #245555, #354354, #546543 > Moderate: #535436, #45326543, #5443543 > >Developers like finite-looking lists like this. They can see an end to >the work. Fix 5 bugs and we are good to go for the release. Obviously >there will still be bugs, but at least this would be an organized approach >to it. This would be certainly nice, but for the moment the PHP 4 bug report being sent to php-dev@ again (after a ... two months? pause) would suffice. :) >-Rasmus ------end of quote------ Cynic