Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54306 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 33672 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2011 01:39:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2011 01:39:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 207.97.245.193 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.97.245.193 smtp193.iad.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [207.97.245.193] ([207.97.245.193:40231] helo=smtp193.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 85/F0-28624-5D6A83E4 for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:39:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp29.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A20AB1484E0; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:39:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp29.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 0E0BD148394; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E38A6D1.7030903@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:39:29 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hannes Landeholm CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4E3898B0.40809@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Weak References From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! On 8/2/11 6:25 PM, Hannes Landeholm wrote: > I'm referring to the fact that PHP has a major update once a year. > Looking at it from an agile perspective this is insanely slow. I think > you should use smaller iterations and release faster. The new Mozilla > release schedule is a good example. Having major changes more frequent would mean people that use PHP would be forced to constantly update their systems to keep up - or would not use most of the new features. It would also mean most of new releases will be unstable for most of their lifecycle - as once they'd stabilize we'd have new version on the way. And we'd need massive quantity of resources to test and fix those. Just for perspective - we have a lot of PHP 4 code still out there and many still run 5.1. Most projects still can't afford not to have 5.2 support - even though this version is officially dead. Now let's suppose we are "agile" and have 3 versions in a year. That means developers would have to test on 6 or 9 versions of PHP instead of 2 or 3 now. Or people would just ignore all new stuff - and what's the point then? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227