Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62483 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 56131 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2012 13:40:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Aug 2012 13:40:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 64.22.89.133 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.22.89.133 oxmail.registrar-servers.com Received: from [64.22.89.133] ([64.22.89.133:57034] helo=oxmail.registrar-servers.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A3/48-06857-4C5D8305 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:40:20 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.200] (5ad3285b.bb.sky.com [90.211.40.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0416A758087; Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5038D5A2.6050002@ajf.me> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:39:46 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lester Caine CC: "internals@lists.php.net >> PHP internals" References: <503897B4.8020303@lsces.co.uk> <5038C04D.9080509@lsces.co.uk> <5038C0F8.9060008@ajf.me> <5038D2B1.6060704@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5038D2B1.6060704@lsces.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Older style frameworks ... From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrew Faulds) On 25/08/12 14:27, Lester Caine wrote: > Andrew Faulds wrote: >> OK Lester, you've whined enough, what do you want us to do? Freeze >> development >> for 5 years so ISPs can slowly catch up, or something? > > Simply taking care to provide fixed point that we can work to would > have helped. LTS versions have been rejected in the past, but PLEASE > can we stop producing yet another PHP5.x version and make PHP5.4 an > end point that we can work to and produce comprehensive upgrade notes > to help people get to that point. Make that an LTS version and move > new development over to PHP6 where there would be more 'flexibility' > to break things if needs be. > > PHP5.2 is the current LTS almost by default, but one thing that we > need to try and do is get the user community to move to PHP5.4 rather > than the current move to PHP5.3 on many ISP's ( at least the one's I'm > having to deal with ). If PHP5.4 is ring fenced then at least we have > a point to aim for? Currently the situation on the ground is that > PHP5.3 is the next production version for ISP's despite the fact that > it's not supported! > What? PHP 5.2 is no longer updated. PHP 5.3 is the current LTS, people are just being too slow to upgrade. > I was reconsidering a point I made earlier, and all that we need is a > 'legacy' php.ini that would provide a cleaner base for ISP's moving > from PHP5.2 and also a reference point so we can document changes > needed to the older code to bring it up to date ... strict compliant > without any deprecated warnings. A 'matching' php.ini for PHP5.3 would > help things in the interim. Having to manage sites on PHP5.2 and 5.3, > while testing the same sites on 5.4 is my current situation, and > having PHP5.5 looming in the background is just another irritation. > ISPs should have moved to 5.3 long ago. If they haven't, that isn't our problem. > I have no doubt that it will take some years for PHP5.4 to replace > 5.2, but at least we will have a fixed target to work with? > -- Andrew Faulds http://ajf.me/