Version management (was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 Alpha?)
| From: | Derick Rethans | Date: | Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:14:11 +0000 |
| Subject: | Version management (was: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 Alpha?) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-49260@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:20 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > Is LTS really something we need to provide? Seems to me like this is
> > something the linux vendors take care of for the most part. Of course
> > this leaves windows, OSX (and maybe some others).
>
> Well, I don't see it as loooooooooooooooooooooooooong term support, but
Using LTS as a term confused me on that one :P
> rather as way to enable quick feature cycles, so that feature releases
> can move faster than anybody can upgrade to them (ok, that's a bit too
> fast the, but hope you get the point), while new features can get in
> production sooner, where wanted.
>
> We could also use the names "feature preview release" and "stable
> release"(=lts) ... which would bring us close to MySQL's model and their
> confusing version numbering (MySQL 5.1 is the stable there, then MySQL
> 5.4 was announced as preview, now MySQL 5.5 is the current preview
> release, neither 5.4 nor 5.5 are "stable", "GA", though)
I still don't think this is a good idea though. That would me we have
(as example) 5.2 in LTS, 5.6 as stable and 5.7 in trunk? How much do you
(at that point) like supporting a 4/5 year old version? Do you hvae that
much spare time?
I think our current way work pretty well. There is 5.2 which is
security-fix supported, 5.3 that is supported and trunk/5.4 that's on
the way to alpha.
Derick
--
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug