Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:18817 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93295 invoked by uid 1010); 13 Sep 2005 10:36:41 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93280 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2005 10:36:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Sep 2005 10:36:41 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.233.184.206 wproxy.gmail.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([64.233.184.206:22475] helo=wproxy.gmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id 92/FF-58045-8BBA6234 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 06:36:40 -0400 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 36so2398500wra for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:36:37 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=B179G+aEzEtOv5VSbiRT3OtT+zcoP6ys1oHr6pth5UCe5Hen+hbM1vdhvwO0Q7i4xWDCReyYoD7Oh9sp78pZGMxEVlnO+LRlhBXR/paeLzyFZcIOVHBtTXfmIwX10Zy8clpm6hajsawISh2wJBqo3ANv0KwIcnMrfN/uhrh6uCs= Received: by 10.54.132.14 with SMTP id f14mr380233wrd; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.154.16 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:36:37 +0200 Reply-To: pierre.php@gmail.com To: Andi Gutmans Cc: Zeev Suraski , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050912173109.034612f0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050912173631.07038640@localhost> <6.2.3.4.2.20050912173109.034612f0@localhost> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.0.5, BC break, fatal error From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) Hi Andi, On 9/13/05, Andi Gutmans wrote: > Mini releases are not only for security fixes. We also do bug fixes, > and sometimes even minor functionality (like a new function) which > has very low risk of breaking anything. I don't think 5.0.5 is > different from that. As far as (http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=3D34468) exists and have many little brothers, I do think 5.0.5 is very different from that. > I do think we could probably be better at communicating these kind of > breakages. Question is wether we should just try harder, or if you > have some other concrete ideas which would be easy to implement and stick= to? The implementation is fine, a bug is fixed (whether I had it or not does not matter ;). About trying harder, I will say trying, not bettter, harder, but only trying. My plan before 4.4.0 and 5.1 releases was about being more carefull. Not like I did not say anything or tried to convince those "STFU" people to do so. The steps: - Do not mix security fixes and BC breaks, this is the worst thing one can = do. - Do not move from no warning to a fatal error without an intermediate version. For example, 5.0.5 will only raise notices, 5.0.6 and up will have the required behavi= ors. - In any case, it should be wroten in a prominent place both in Changelog a= nd in the announce text. For example, the 5.0.5 announce only tells that XML_RP= C=20 has a security problem, was it on purpose? bad joke? 4.4.0 for that matter was better than 5.0.5. At least it does not always die. But the announcements, communications, or any other normal actions are simply bad, the answers to the bugs report being the worst. So yes, I have had better solutions (from a user point of view), but as you said, it is now too late anyway. But I do not consider that S'ingTFU will help us to be better :-) Regards, --Pierre