Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58479 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54095 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2012 13:05:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Mar 2012 13:05:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.21 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt X-Host-Fingerprint: 193.136.128.21 smtp1.ist.utl.pt Linux 2.6 Received: from [193.136.128.21] ([193.136.128.21:34300] helo=smtp1.ist.utl.pt) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 26/BE-11220-2B5C05F4 for ; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 08:05:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4590F70004A5; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:05:51 +0000 (WET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.4 (20090625) (Debian) at ist.utl.pt Received: from smtp1.ist.utl.pt ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.ist.utl.pt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with LMTP id vLz+qwFD6FCz; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:05:51 +0000 (WET) Received: from mail2.ist.utl.pt (mail.ist.utl.pt [IPv6:2001:690:2100:1::8]) by smtp1.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF88770003C3; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:05:50 +0000 (WET) Received: from slws007.slhq.int (a79-168-248-114.cpe.netcabo.pt [79.168.248.114]) (Authenticated sender: ist155741) by mail2.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BF5D2008839; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:05:50 +0000 (WET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: "Pierre Joye" Cc: "PHP internals" References: Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:05:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: =?utf-8?Q?N=C3=BAcleo_de_Eng=2E_Biom=C3=A9di?= =?utf-8?Q?ca_do_I=2ES=2ET=2E?= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.61 (Win32) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] discussions, about a 5.3 EOL From: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt ("Gustavo Lopes") On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:00:51 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Gustavo Lopes > wrote: > >> I'd go with another option: >> >> One year of bug fixes, one year of security fixes and bug fixes that are >> trivial to backport. > > Won't work. It is then two years bug fixing. > > The idea of security only is to reduce both the amount of work and the > risk to break it inadvertently. > >> The truth is most of the time is less trouble to just merge the fix to >> oldstable than >> 1) determine if the bug is possibly exploitable >> 2) ask the RM for approval > > One has to do both anyway already. We have to request CVE for security > issues and to ask RM for invasive fixes. Fair enough. Option #1 seems the most appropriate then. The others seem too drastic to implement with such short notice. -- Gustavo Lopes