Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102440
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c8S3UK3xakJQ4eD1mCMvBAdms2_d5aDd0oOZHfi67Mn9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVqKqLDcbrTwzSD2qms32kF3FROa6XGXp9UEgp2MLjDvPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR0201MB35423C070BADA25899A12E1EAC740@DM5PR0201MB3542.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAFMT4NoB-WvTZ=tEqeMMOdt0vDxPLqe-_Ab93xqeKp1GXYjfew@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR0201MB3542CDDEC128637665333A61AC4B0@DM5PR0201MB3542.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAFMT4NrWt0APfRKaDc_m0WXT=i2+qRLZkDutVofHfrsk4dm3_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD11D3A-D799-46CF-9DD0-E34552FB15CD@gmail.com> <4552e1c3-b538-17ab-95fd-708dfa4f0d5a@lange.demon.co.uk>
 <CAPKYkKzY2V11d0GaeZfuUm91K2fskHgxyYJtXA4AsZn-Lv7gGw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHtznyB0oQVstisdOiqyM3uyJa8Hd7VM-RbE4nYNbLPg2Hpzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznyB0oQVstisdOiqyM3uyJa8Hd7VM-RbE4nYNbLPg2Hpzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:34:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEUnE0enV1Abhc6bqvpn-KsMzC4Zwi2WC56CQpznw4ZVRtffnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f470da056f7c7997"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 8 next?
From: tendoaki@gmail.com (Michael Morris)

--000000000000f470da056f7c7997
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:55 PM Zeev Suraski <vsuraski@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:40 PM Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 1.) Old code breaks during minor updates. We upgraded to 7.0 AFTER 7.1
> was
> > released, because we had already made major updates to upgrade to 7.0,
> and
> > 7.1 introduced a few things that would have broken our code - we didn't
> > have time to fix those by that point. "Throw on passing too few function
> > arguments" would actually break more stuff in our legacy code than all of
> > the 7.0 changes combined.
> >
>
> I agree.  It was a bad decision on our part to do it in 7.1 - this bit a
> lot of users.
>
>
> > Finally, I personally see the idea of a deprecation only release to be
> kind
> > of silly. I don't work for a software company. It's tough enough for me
> to
> > make a case for upgrading using the "increase performance" and "new
> > features" argument. There is no way I'd get the go-ahead to do an upgrade
> > that would just make additional features deprecated. It would be a better
> > use of my time to look for and fix the deprecated features as part of the
> > 8.0 upgrade prep, than to upgrade to 7.4. Maybe look at at backporting
> some
> > of the new 8.0 features that aren't really dependent on the major things
> > like JIT, async, etc., as part of the 7.4 release.
> >
> > Fair enough, and I think there'll likely be a lot of folks that would see
> no point in going through such a 7.4.  However, I think that folks working
> in more agile companies, or even developers that want to get a head start
> on preparing for 8.0 - will find value in such a release.  TBH, the vast
> majority of users don't upgrade to our minor versions even when they bring
> new features and capabilities.
>

So, about that Ternary operator?

My understanding is that major releases are the only ones allowed to have
breaking changes. Correcting the ternary operator to work like it does in
all other languages is a small example. Merging the symbol tables is
another.

5.3 had namespaces - 5.4 made APC core - these were major changes but not
breaking ones.

Breaking changes need significant notice as Levi points out.

>
>

--000000000000f470da056f7c7997--