Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58485
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of julienpauli@gmail.com designates 10.182.75.40 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.182.75.40;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: julienpauli@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CADajX4DTObV_MRp30udtKSZbiRKbc0xw6Kn5Qz6GMyFY0VUm9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEZPtU7qpMr9ZTX=+NDus05WA2RZ9A3rWNnHSr8WOBXjqbp4VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <op.wajnk8ssidpuyk@slws007.slhq.int> <CAEZPtU7R0hgW+7CEzUzu4k+qmjSe7i8xN_pfbkcsHna4Ua76MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <op.wajnzxdzidpuyk@slws007.slhq.int> <CADajX4CBvXCeJgee1dkWqV06uSvWEgjbHJXUAntQGS9Zcm7drw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJWj5+E6YChB9bLT4DdJEv0Rz2izLH-et0Ydr8K_niNnTZY3Jw@mail.gmail.com> <CADajX4DTObV_MRp30udtKSZbiRKbc0xw6Kn5Qz6GMyFY0VUm9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:56:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMUwpuRTpX6P45Ajq3DVQipAUux26qh2RBTh1K-wDf1VpSYWJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>
Cc: Simon Schick <simonsimcity@googlemail.com>, Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt>, 
	Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae939949996f93b04ba42f23f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] discussions, about a 5.3 EOL
From: jpauli@php.net (jpauli)

--14dae939949996f93b04ba42f23f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote:

> On 2 March 2012 21:34, Simon Schick <simonsimcity@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > One or two years is way to short if you'd ask me. A major release shoul=
d
> be
> > supported with all kind of bug fixes for min. 3 years after a new relea=
se
> > has been brought out. Specially if it's a wide-spread language like PHP
> that
> > has been implemented by such big and lazy companies. Please do not
> > misunderstand that. Lazy is not meant in the way that they are doing
> > nothing, but that it takes way more time as it does for me installing a
> new
> > PHP version on my 2-3 servers.
>
> There has to be a limit at some point because the maintenance burden
> becomes too difficult. With the two year proposals, we're going to end
> up in a position next year where we'll have active 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6
> and trunk trees (or whatever 5.5 and 5.6 get numbered). That's at
> least one too many, frankly, but there was always going to be some
> awkwardness during the transition to the new release process and I for
> one would prefer to err on the side of caution.
>
> Honestly, I'd probably prefer 9 months of bug fixes (up to the release
> of 5.5 in November/December) + 9 months of security fixes, but I don't
> want to muddy Pierre's RFC further, and I'd like to hear the opinions
> of the RMs, since this is very much on them.
>
> The point of the release process RFC was to clarify this =97 releases
> from 5.4 onwards have a clearly defined two year bug fix + one year
> security fix lifetime. I think that's reasonable, and it falls into
> line pretty well with a number of other languages. The fact that we're
> in this position is a one-off, and I don't think we can prolong it
> indefinitely (nor do we really have the resources to).
>
> Adam
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I'm OK for option #1
The RM should have things to tell from their side and from past experiences=
.

About LTS, I think it's not our job.
Any company that would need LTS should just ask for it from its OS Support,
that's their job.

Julien.P

--14dae939949996f93b04ba42f23f--