Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26216 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6801 invoked by uid 1010); 24 Oct 2006 04:17:08 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6786 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2006 04:17:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Oct 2006 04:17:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 194.73.73.230 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 194.73.73.230 c2bthomr14.btconnect.com FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.3) (2) Received: from [194.73.73.230] ([194.73.73.230:21982] helo=c2bthomr14.btconnect.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F1/7A-39788-0C39D354 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:17:05 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (host81-138-11-136.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.138.11.136]) by c2bthomr14.btconnect.com (MOS 3.7.4b-GA) with ESMTP id BTE44791; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:11:39 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <453D93C8.7020907@lsces.co.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:17:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060910 SeaMonkey/1.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why 5.2 should not be delayed for E_DEPRECATED From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > I've been reading people's replies to Marcus' RFC in regard to > E_DEPRECATED and it seems that some people have expressed the want to > delay 5.2 until mucking around with error handling is done one way or > another. My simple answer to this is no. SIMPLE QUESTION - I've just been through the exercise of finally moving everything to 5.1.6 after testing everything. I'd dropped back to 5.0.4 simply because 5.0.5 cause problems with nearly all of my sites and could not be used. Are any of the 'rule changes' in 5.2 going to cause the same compatibility problems as 5.0.5 did - if so and E_DEPRECATED is the correct state for these changes then it needs sorting before release rather than once again releasing code that just causes problems. At the very least we need a proper statement of what could be broken rather than the comments buried somewhere in the release notes ? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php