Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54192 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 92716 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2011 20:57:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jul 2011 20:57:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johnjawed@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johnjawed@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.173 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johnjawed@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.173 mail-ey0-f173.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.173] ([209.85.215.173:37139] helo=mail-ey0-f173.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E2/A1-12720-AA8DD2E4 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:57:14 -0400 Received: by eyb7 with SMTP id 7so4157810eyb.4 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=rMfFzu+Nkw8RaoRq2azk8E+JnJAXEu+iDMgIfz0QidI=; b=KomMGw3RHx7cVu1ZFhWQvcTkgUZ/soh6OpR7ChoOslNyN7L5Rx8GB5MDC/LO60lIT3 F2UD6MO0u6R/vGk+YURpwuJOJSbj8XSrtwSr9PTLHDLvU5BH8ZlWgjz12d7DYkhRX0xQ EU1kyUhD7+QrvQo89fGulKQX6TIT3cCYk/2+Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.21.141 with SMTP id j13mr261687fab.79.1311627431295; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Sender: johnjawed@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.95.205 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:57:11 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: o_eJ8JCLPeD3pEVVYeSRW5qpDc0 Message-ID: To: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: session_* removal in 5.4 From: jawed@php.net (JJ) While looking over the release notes for 5.4a1 (http://www.php.net/archive/2011.php#id2011-06-28-1) I noticed that the related session_* functions had been removed. As I interpreted it, this goes against the spirit of the release RFC for x.y+1.z releases, specifically: - Backward compatibility must be kept - API compatibility must be kept (user land) The removal of these functions makes sense (to me) but I think in order to respect the release RFC we should either: a) defer the removal of session_* functions till the appropriate release b) update the RFC nomeclature to cover this use case (as Florian pointed out, the current wording leaves it open to interpretation) I do realize I'm late to the party (sorry) and I'm not sure if it's too late to revert course on this specific change...but I think the session_* removal change will make the upgrade process more difficult because of its' far-reaching impact. - JJ