Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64244 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37125 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2012 01:28:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Dec 2012 01:28:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 217.114.211.66 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.211.66 config.schlueters.de Received: from [217.114.211.66] ([217.114.211.66:64328] helo=config.schlueters.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1D/E2-16251-83C86C05 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:28:25 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.20] (host-188-174-210-58.customer.m-online.net [188.174.210.58]) (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 B0E286535E; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:28:20 +0100 (CET) To: Yasuo Ohgaki Cc: Adam Harvey , PHP internals list In-Reply-To: References: <1355137083.3178.24.camel@guybrush> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: PHP Development Team Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:29:00 +0100 Message-ID: <1355189340.3178.106.camel@guybrush> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.3 - end of live schedule From: johannes@php.net (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 08:55 +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > 2012/12/10 Adam Harvey : > > On 10 December 2012 18:58, Johannes Schlüter wrote: > >> As of this date the 5.3 branch will go to extended support and should > >> receive security fixes only. Releases will be made based on need. > >> > >> Please mind that the above schedule is tentative and unpredictable > >> events might change this. > >> > >> Comments? > > I think there is no consensus of EOL of 5.3 from last discussion > as Pierre mentioned. In the thread "[RFC] discussions, about a 5.3 EOL" mostly supported option #1 from the RFC, some were convinced and changed their opinion for #1, one wished for some LTS kind of model (which is an independent thing which means replacing the current release model, aka nowadays relevant for 5.5) Some people commented about waiting for 5.5 but not as much. Also the proposer of that RFC mentioned this had to be decided "now" depending on 5.4's release, but apparently didn't see need to formalize this by a vote which I also interpreted(!) as part of a consensus. > > At the very least, I think we should keep full support going until > > 5.5.0 final is out, which it strikes me probably won't be in February > > at our current rate. > > Anyway, I'm +1 for extending 5.3 EOL at least until 5.5.0 release. Well, people don't trust .0 versions, so we then should wait for 5.5.1 or 5.5.2 ... but by then 5.6 will already be in development, so why not wait for 5.6? But more seriously: 5.3 won't stop working and will still receive critical fixes for at least a year. Users will also face less risk while updating that a fix broke something by accident. As a recent example take a look at commit 6dff07 ("Fixed bug #63512 parse_ini_file() with INI_SCANNER_RAW removes quotes from value"). This change slightly changes the behavior. People might treat the current behavior, which was "introduced" while fixing #51094 for 5.3.15 as feature even though (I assume) most users would see #51094 and #63512, as clear bugs. Such changes force people to verify each and every release. If we limit ourselves to critical issues we a) reduce the risk of adding new bugs (like #63512) b) make the verification process for users simpler as less things in the code change. While, yes, there might be a few more bugs, but they are at least documented in the bug tracker and fixes and different work-arounds exist. (and if too many people stumble over it, it can still be escalated and become "critical") A bit related rant: Looking at the commit times of some merges it seems unlikely that all changes are actually tested in all branches. When there is less than two minutes between a commit to 5.3 and merge to 5.4, 5.5 and master I assume that often the only test is about merge conflicts -- not even a compile test. Of course people might do some manual things outside git, do merges with --no-commit first and later commit or do some rewrite in between ... but I assume the less branches we have the higher the percentage of tested branches is (pessimistically: from 25% to 33.3%) > How about announce 5.3 EOL in 5.5 RC release notes? RCs don't reach the same audience. PHP 5.3.x release notes need it. 5.5.0-final release notes will certainly receive our boilerplate "All users are suggested to update" snippet, maybe a bit extended. Which is also why I hope we reach an agreement before release 5.3.20 on Thursday next week. johannes