Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70224 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5340 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2013 10:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Nov 2013 10:23:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain jonstirling.co.uk from 209.85.215.52 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.52 mail-la0-f52.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.52] ([209.85.215.52:56651] helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 94/93-20870-AAD8C825 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 05:23:39 -0500 Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ev20so7070694lab.39 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 02:23:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=sJzLF6w5Tkwsg2VbR6R7iYtitEUpjfh2ATu+Np3Jm0M=; b=XVAW8qZcdg46VEHSfLYoFkdZBKBX3V+RWYXf0Ni7KTgMl+dn/cY7yG2UtejisMn2XE DvqajPg9XxdB8ejGiTxaVagNJ2UqlM893gupWsVJfpUji0BpvWYXjDmQZ7L3OjBIHFd9 Z569uAfln+uHY6fEZ6/Kde2cqEjLrQv9n1yHKWAFNauJuJQdKbKXfi6+AUw9338cOXLB pMzNSi8NDnhoBGdYXJj1UlMe0Vm6vMK4B028Fl9NcxSMeNtx+V4CcsM1XvJZvHTbpcwf KD02dvtJJdExqyoknfQzmD7TQufQfDmqD2gDcQxbBQTXXbad6Ke0vpgI6DechB/IlbEU nIJw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmh4os63mJZPyXwjxNJhowbxDcv0oNgqohcdTffJaADvXUP1Le6mpfJdWxlBjO9B11pdEDL MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.16.67 with SMTP id e3mr27374lbd.55.1384943015837; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 02:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.7.65 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 02:23:35 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [62.252.0.138] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:35 +0000 Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye Cc: Nikita Popov , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3f9b27e516204eb992c4b Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Making "backwards compatibility" discussions more constructive From: phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk (Jonny Stirling) --001a11c3f9b27e516204eb992c4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, No no, I'm not saying that there were no new features or enhancements between minor releases or even revision points. I'm simply saying that there can be worthwhile changes that impact BC. Limiting those changes to the next major release which can be up to a decade in the future could be considered detrimental to PHP. I'm also not saying that the BC rules /should/ be relaxed, but asking that if it were, where would it end. By relaxing the rule, you'd need to add a lot of complexity to compensate. Just my 2 cents. Cheers. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > hi, > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jonny Stirling > wrote: > > > > Refusing anything that causes a BC break except for major releases makes > > sense, until you remember that PHP's major releases have a tendency to > last > > 8-10 years if not longer. That's a pretty long time to wait for potential > > enhancements / sane changes to the language isn't it? > > Please check 5.4.0 and 5.5.0 new features. That's not like there were > no improvement. > > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org > --001a11c3f9b27e516204eb992c4b--