Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58642
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.42 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of pierre.php@gmail.com designates 10.100.225.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.100.225.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BF.91.16054.784455F4@pb1.pair.com>
References: <CAEZPtU7qpMr9ZTX=+NDus05WA2RZ9A3rWNnHSr8WOBXjqbp4VQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F50EA41.1080706@php.net>
	<3B.AE.35539.CD7255F4@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAEZPtU5WdAb8R4uDwrNX2c0wXZjSyzo4xzjdtx0xbXJ2_cpS9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BF.91.16054.784455F4@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:01:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7S+91NeC+wwoE5PhSOU_h+033cPecJ0uEuJNwnBusyNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Matthew Weier O'Phinney" <weierophinney@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] discussions, about a 5.3 EOL
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi,

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
<weierophinney@php.net> wrote:

> I did, actually. I still agree with Sebastian's proposal. While the PHP
> group may want to push for faster adoption, the pattern I've observed
> over and over is that ISPs and distributions -- particularly those with
> LTS offerings --

There is no nothing of LTS, and I do not think there will ever be, in
PHP. But yes, that's the role of the distributions to do it.

>  tend to adopt a minor version only when the new minor
> version supplanting it has been released. Does it make sense? No. Is it
> what happens? Yes.

This behavior, and from a distribution point of view, has been based
on their experiences with our relatively poor releases process or
quality (from a BC point of view and other related things).

The fact that debian was already planing 5.4 for debian-next before
5.4 was even final shows that this is what they expect. I got the same
feedback from ISPs or other distributions. Indeed one or the other may
prefer longer time frames, or some details changed, but all in all
they like what we do now.

It is also important to move forward and consider what we have now to
take decisions and not what we have been doing or what has been done.
Things change, if we don't see it we can't expect our users to see it
either.

>  As such, I think it makes a lot of sense to base the
> lifetime of 5.3 based on when 5.4 is released.

5.4 was released on March, 1st. That's why I asked this question now
while it should have been done before.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org