Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58518 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70759 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2012 19:08:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Mar 2012 19:08:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.211.66 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.211.66 config.schlueters.de Received: from [217.114.211.66] ([217.114.211.66:58249] helo=config.schlueters.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1D/0A-22821-6AA115F4 for ; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:08:23 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.230] (ppp-88-217-88-171.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.88.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by config.schlueters.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2164560EA2; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 20:08:19 +0100 (CET) To: Pierre Joye Cc: PHP internals In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:08:18 +0100 Message-ID: <1330715298.2986.1771.camel@guybrush> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] discussions, about a 5.3 EOL From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) Hi, the primary goal should be to encourage people to move to 5.4 as soon as possible. The clear marketing message should be along the lines of "PHP 5.4 is the best version there is, it has all of 5.3's bug fixes and additional improvements". We have to drive the 5.4 adoption. I also don't think it's a "till that date all kinds of fixes and from then on suddenly security only" thing. For one due to the fact that there are always enough corner cases and for the second that regular bug fixing will phase out naturally ("Oh this is such a corner case I won't validate it on 5.3, rather spend time on the next bug"). If we force developers too much to verify and fix on multiple trees they either blindly commit without testing[1] or don't fix bugs at all. In the end most contributors do this voluntarily for fun (or ego or ...). So to sum it all up: I would prefer to promise security fixes only to the outside (2 years if people here think that's a good time) and then, as a group, agree to do additional bug fixing during that time. johannes [1] Remember the PHP 6 story: There were enough commits 1:1 from 5.2 applied which sometimes didn't even compile. On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 13:34 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote: > hi, > > It should have been done before 5.4.0 was out, but better late than never. > > I put together four options here: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php53eol > > I'm in favor of option #1, as it gives enough time to our users to > migrate by reducing the maintenance period to only one year. > > Suggestions or comments welcome, > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org >