[Phpmyadmin-devel] 2.4.1 release schedule

Robin H. Johnson robbat2 at orbis-terrarum.net
Mon Mar 17 07:02:01 CET 2003

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 01:31:10PM +0100, Garvin Hicking wrote:
> > I also agree with Rabus about the new requirements of PHP and MySQL
> > (after 2.5.0).
> Looks like we have a deal on that issue? ;)
+1 here as well, so I think it's a done deal.

On seeing the impressive new feature list, I would like to extend a
special thanks to Garvin. The amount of work he's put into this over the
last little while is a sizeable contribution to PMA.
Someday when I'm in Europe I'll buy you a beer!

> > Instead of talking about rc1, I should have said "feature freeze". We
> > have to freeze someday :)  So do we freeze on March 30?
> I'm definitely positive about that. Only thing we could maybe put in the next
> release may be Rabus' installscript -- if he finishes that after his graduation. :)
Agreed on the freeze date. My semester and final exams are over April
15th, so things get interesting after that ;-).

> > About Sessions, I agree but I would prefer that the rewrite goes
> > gradually into the tree, instead of a rewrite that stalls other
> > developers. So we split the rewrite between developers?
> You mean branching the project in "new features" and "session rewrite"? I don't know
> if it is possible to let multiple developers work concurrently on a session rewrite.
> What do you suggest there?
I think that the session rewrite shouldn't be too intrusive if done
properly. I've been playing around with a little idea for a session hack
already that should be possible to drop into PMA. It's all based around
knowing what values of variables get set where, and having a complete
list of variables at each entry and exit point of the code.

However having two seperate branches, one for all other features, and
one for the session rewrite may come in handy for working on it still

> > About PHP3 and older MySQL, do we let the current workarounds in place?
> > I say yes, would be a big job to remove them. But we no longer put
> > workarounds for new debugging/features.
> I vote for dropping older support. This will make the code smaller and easier to
> maintain.
Lets be careful about this. Some of the workarounds exist literally as
workarounds, but some of the other code (such as my SQL parser) was
written with PHP3 in mind, and if redone, could radically benefit from
pure PHP4.

> > Finally, phpMyAdmin 3.0 should be in a distinct branch, and the code
> > would be .php based.
> Yes, before beginning to work on session rewrite we should make a branch. If there
> are some major bugs in < 3.0 release, we should still be able to fix that
> independently.
In CVS terminology, I think PMA3 should be a new module 'phpMyAdmin3'
rather than just a branch of the code. It should definetly be a full
rewrite of PMA from the ground up, with additional consideration given
to which PHP modules will be available in the PHP version we choose

This will enable us to keep the old 'phpMyAdmin' module intact in CVS as
well for major bugfixes to it.

Anybody up for starting a wishlist for the proper re-write of PMA3 ?
my initial requests:
uses an HTML library (no raw HTML in the code) - MUCH cleaner
easier to manage translations system - using gettext (see Horde)
install script
db-based config

Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2 at orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.phpmyadmin.net/pipermail/developers/attachments/20030317/cb59698a/attachment.sig>

More information about the Developers mailing list