Alexander M. Turek
alexander.turek at stud.uni-karlsruhe.de
Wed May 5 15:27:02 CEST 2004
Marc Delisle wrote:
> I vote for merging the new patch for a delayed 2.6.0-rc1.
> First I was thinking that we are late in 2.6.0 cycle, but now I think:
> - people that need mysqli already have 2.6.0-alpha1, or the
> daily snapshot
> - for a 2.6.0 release, maybe it's important to have a new
> look. Most users do not even have the server infrastructure
> to benefit from our mysqli support, so the main thing they
> will notice is the look :)
That's what I thought, too.
Michal Cihar wrote:
> Maybe releasing aplha2 before we start new look merging?
+1 from my side. We fixed some bugs and merged some smaller changes since
> There are tons of unneeded (and unwanted) changes like
> removing echo "\n";, meging of more lines onto one and so on.
> It needs huge cleanup...
Can you estimate how long this might take?
Garvin Hicking wrote:
> I can live with that. You are right about people being able
> to user 2.6.0, but alpha may sound way unstable to users, so
> I was thinking that many will only migrate as soon as it
> leaves the 'alpha' cycle.
Yes, but people who are afraid of alphas usually don't deal with MySQLi and
MySQL 4.1 either, do they?
MySQLi is a very yound php extension, bundled with php5 which is still beta
- just like MySQL 4.1.
When we started working on 2.6.0, we branched out 2.5.x because we expected
the development of 2.6.0 to take longer than usual.
As far as I know, there are no critical bugs that would require a fast
release and even if there was one: we could still merge a fix to the 2.5.x
The main features of 2.6.0 (MySQLi and full MySQL 4.1 / 5.0 support) affect
php and MySQL versions that should be handled at least as carefully as a
phpMyAdmin alpha version.
> As you maybe can see from my last work on PMA I'm getting a
> new grip and time to spend on it. So if the patch will be
> delivered in time I surely offer to work on it; just as
> Michal said, we need to apply our coding style to the patch
> and most of all try to maintain some backwards-compatibility
> for the 'old' look.
What do you mean by "backwards-compatibility"?
> I was already thinking of splitting up the configuration file
> into a ".design"
> php file where one could apply the many optical directives.
> But doing so would mean huge work on the config_import utility...
No, it won't. Trust me. :-)
Alexander M. Turek
<rabus at users.sourceforge.net>
_ __ __ _ _ _
_ __ | |__ _ __ | \/ |_ _ / \ __| |_ __ ___ (_)_ __
| '_ \| '_ \| '_ \| |\/| | | | | / _ \ / _` | '_ ` _ \| | '_ \
| |_) | | | | |_) | | | | |_| |/ ___ \ (_| | | | | | | | | | |
| .__/|_| |_| .__/|_| |_|\__, /_/ \_\__,_|_| |_| |_|_|_| |_|
|_| |_| |___/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3102 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Developers