Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52741
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com does not designate 208.113.200.5 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4DE75994.6060300@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:36:20 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <BANLkTim2Tbw+9egfrmrYfeZfNNwYWcg4dg@mail.gmail.com>	<4DE6BE66.3070007@oracle.com>	<BANLkTinAaFn=-UY2AXFhKZQ6fqqWZz92AQ@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTim5n6ekS++GX2r9VKV-tf7221oC_w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinzrcHTB7yXdcrKG-9U6J_9xMw52Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinzrcHTB7yXdcrKG-9U6J_9xMw52Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Final version, RFC release process
From: davidkmuir@gmail.com (David Muir)

On 02/06/11 17:23, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for jumping into the thread, but I couldn't help noting that you seem
>> confused about the distro suggestion. I think Ubuntu was the example, and
>> there's nothing random at all about their release process. There are fixed
>> timelines and life cycles in Ubuntu - having less branches does not in any
>> way stop them from having a fixed release process and schedule.
> It is about "random" release being chosen as LTS. For many users, it
> will preventing migration until a given feature is part of a LTS
> release.
>
> Our proposal to have fixed life time and release cycles does not have
> this random effect and each x.y release is equally supported for the
> same duration. The amount of branches can be reduced easily and even
> if we may have many at one point, it will be only about sec fixes,
> that's really not a problem (a bit of automated tasked will help here
> too).
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>

Johannes said:

Every n-th "current" release will be a long term supported (LTS) release


That doesn't sound very random to me if n is constant.

That said, I'm not sure if an LTS is a good idea. One of the biggest
frustrations for me as a developer is hosts taking forever to upgrade to
newer versions of PHP. Most hosts I've seen are still on 5.2, and some
don't seem to have plans of upgrading to 5.3 any time soon. To me, an
LTS release would just make this situation worse, although the upside is
that at least we'd still be getting security fixes.

If however the LTS release lifetime is similar to the current y release
(x.y.z) then maybe it won't be so bad as it would grant earlier and
stable access to new features for those who have control over their php
installs, while retain a more long term supported release that hosts
would be happy with.

Cheers,
David