Re: [PEAR-DEV]PEAR_Exception-1.0.0beta1 (beta) Released.

Hey,


On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Alexey Borzov <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Till,
>
> A couple of questions first:
>  1) We do have a consensus on releasing a PHP5-only PEAR 1.10?
>

I personally think that's fine. We can also release a PEAR 2.0 to keep
semver.


>  2) What's your opinion on Christian's suggestion about creating a
> 1.10-stable branch and cherry-picking changes for that?


Fine with that as well.

If we change the minimum PHP version, then maybe a 2.0 is much better. I
always liked that PEAR keeps proper BC and semver when others don't.


>
>
> On 27.02.2014 14:59, till wrote:
>
>> Hey Alexey,
>>
>> I released PEAR_Exception so people could test PEAR.
>>
>
> Is this even necessary? I mean, you can do an install using package.xml
> from checkout without actually releasing package on the channel.
>

It seemed necessary in here (but you've seen that PR, I think):
https://github.com/pear/pear-core/pull/27


>
> This may make sense if we push out 1.10-beta in a few days, but I'd
> suggest fixing a few things before that.
>
>
>
>  The weird content-type/charset bugfix you were referring to was fixed in
>> master (last year) and still not released.
>>
>
> ...and the relevant bug reports were not closed either.
>
> OK, I'll also look through commits and close the reports that are probably
> addressed already.


OK, thanks!


>
>
>
>  I don't know where this is at right now. I think Ken wanted to split the
>> PEAR release so the man-files (role-related) are installed seperately and
>> allow for smoother upgrade process.
>>
>
> Yep, I've read the comments in
> https://github.com/pear/pear-core/pull/27
>
> I agree with Ken here.


OK, great.


>
>
>
>  I agree this should be released ASAP. There are a ton of fixes in there
>> which could be shipped. I just don't know a whole lot about the process
>> and
>> just hacked my way through it so the guy who reported the bug and opened a
>> PR could test master first.
>>
>
> What problems can we face when doing the release? The first thing that
> comes to mind is replacing the go-pear.phar, is the process automated /
> documented?


I don't know. I'll cc Helgi and Brett and hope they can chime in.


>
>
>
>  I can't comment on why PEAR contains an HTTP client, I am +1 if you want
>> to
>> strip it out.
>>
>
> I'll see whether it is possible to integrate HTTP_Request2 with minimal
> fuss.
>
> Also a thing to consider: currently PEAR does nothing about peer
> validation for HTTPS. This may bite us in the ass when PHP 5.6 comes out.
>
>
>
>  Maybe we could use this opportunity to document the process so others can
>> go ahead.
>>
>
> Good idea, should we use the wiki for that?
> https://wiki.php.net/pear


We could also add the release process to the README. At least then it's
where the code is.

We can link that.


>
>
> I'd suggest at least documenting that PEAR lives @ github and list people
> having push access to the repository.


Yeah, good idea.

Till

>
>
>
>  On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Alexey Borzov <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> CC:ing Till on this, looks like he is responsible for releasing
>>> PEAR_Exception and is the closest we have to PEAR package maintainer. :]
>>>
>>> Meanwhile I was already able to close about a dozen obviously bogus /
>>> duplicate / Archive_Tar-related bugs.
>>>
>>> Also bug #18004 [1] left me wondering: why does PEAR contain a homegrown
>>> HTTP client? If we decide on releasing PHP5-only version, we may add
>>> HTTP_Request2 as a dependency which will allow some features not possible
>>> now (like HTTPS through proxy) and probably also improve performance a
>>> bit
>>> (due to using keep-alive).
>>>
>>> [1] http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=18004
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26.02.2014 1:30, Christian Weiske wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hello Alexey,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Helgi (or whoever released this), is this a good idea to do a
>>>>
>>>>> separate PEAR_Exception without releasing a new PEAR package
>>>>> simultaneously? Current PEAR package contains PEAR_Exception class as
>>>>> well and this will probably lead to conflicts.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Yes, a new pear release is needed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   I don't quite remember what was the consensus last time this was
>>>>
>>>>> discussed, but from my point of view the best solution will be to
>>>>> push a new PEAR 1.10.*
>>>>>     * with dependency on PHP 5+
>>>>>     * without bundled PEAR_Exception class but
>>>>>     * with a required dependency on new PEAR_Exception package.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Yep.
>>>>
>>>>   Also a new version of PEAR is long overdue with 1.9.4 released in
>>>>
>>>>> 2011 and 82 (!) bugs in the tracker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone working on PEAR at all? If not I may help a bit with bug
>>>>> triage and possibly send some patches.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not really. Clockwerx is merging PRs now and then, but there are - in
>>>> my eyes - some unstable patches in current master.
>>>>
>>>> The work we have to do is
>>>> - create 1.10 branch
>>>> - find out which patches can go into 1.10.0
>>>> - cherry-pick them from master
>>>>
>>>> master is too unstable for a no-dedicated-maintainer release.
>>>> The gpg validation for example is not ready for release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>