Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107011
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <076701d56978$86020910$92061b30$@php.net> <CAKuGYLQA+XMHLGXPM4n_eEdp-d1=WzDE4Z4iLOzhD+4m83McaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <467be4a0-dd8b-29d2-0b09-a3efd7fad56a@heigl.org> <CAJHtznwJLryZa1fWHXUJd5OS+9YKBjAj30fpN7sjR3By7a-DbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAfnsFU8B7gpd1=CpO+eDr7ogqDdFX7pZYNTT9rSoTDz+ybUQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANvqVdpiRRxO-9AvQJebvjKmL8454p7NLeirOZD7YKNhRzjjgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAwbVue0Pb9_pHGexEsgOiDGutm8Uk-UarAg4KsTZirnwv3QJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAwbVue0Pb9_pHGexEsgOiDGutm8Uk-UarAg4KsTZirnwv3QJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:11:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CANvqVdrozL53POuayum8ZoEC90XmaCfR8KLJvUfBGDTFJEUbeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com>, Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d2222005925fe751"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors
From: michael.babker@gmail.com (Michael Babker)

--000000000000d2222005925fe751
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:06 PM Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:00 PM Michael Babker <michael.babker@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:51 PM Peter Kokot <peterkokot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Just a dumb idea, since there clearly is a majority in favor of the
>> > change with these warnings and strictness and all that now... Why not
>> > making something like an LTS PHP 7.x where all the legacy code would
>> > work OK as long as practically possible and 8.x+ would be the future
>> > of what the developers want and not what business wants? One who won't
>> > upgrade due to the BC breaks also won't need the new features anyway
>> > very realistically.
>> >
>>
>> Please don't tie the notion of LTS with the idea that a new major can
>> break
>> BC at will or create larger scale breaks because the previous major has
>> extended support.  Sooner or later that will end up back at the ++ idea
>> and
>> fragmentation encouraged by the language is a bad idea.
>>
>
> Not sure you are really seeing the goal...
>
> Why is LTS not a good idea?
>

I'm not saying LTS is a bad idea.  I'm saying using LTS to justify shipping
larger scale BC breaks, such as the changes suggested in the last couple of
"contentious" RFCs in a major version because "hey, we have a LTS version
you can use that until you're ready to deal with the backlog of BC breaks
created" is a bad idea. For the record, I happen to agree with as these
RFCs would have minimal impact on my day-to-day work, but having also been
in the role of a maintainer of open source libraries and applications I
also grasp why these types of changes can be problematic to the ecosystem
(both end users of those libraries and applications and the maintainers of
them) and wouldn't jump the gun to ship them without careful consideration.

>

--000000000000d2222005925fe751--