Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70826 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 48585 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2013 01:34:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Dec 2013 01:34:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tessarek@evermeet.cx; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tessarek@evermeet.cx; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain evermeet.cx from 77.244.245.66 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tessarek@evermeet.cx X-Host-Fingerprint: 77.244.245.66 evermeet.cx Linux 2.6 Received: from [77.244.245.66] ([77.244.245.66:51795] helo=atvie01s.evermeet.cx) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 3B/87-07676-7A146B25 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 20:34:32 -0500 Received: from [10.0.0.40] (135-23-85-229.cpe.pppoe.ca [135.23.85.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by atvie01s.evermeet.cx (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rBM1YOlv021185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 22 Dec 2013 02:34:25 +0100 Message-ID: <52B641A0.8090506@evermeet.cx> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 20:34:24 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Craig , Ronald Chmara CC: Rowan Collins , internals References: <52B5522A.4040709@lsces.co.uk> <52B61756.9090202@gmail.com> <52B620D7.6090200@evermeet.cx> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 OpenPGP: id=C11F128D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Censorship in php From: tessarek@evermeet.cx (Helmut Tessarek) On 21.12.13 20:25 , Kris Craig wrote: > I don't think he's saying we should "break" PHP. I think he's saying that > we tend to be overly worried about maintaining BC even on bad > functionality, an assessment that I agree with. Maintaining BC religiously > on minor increments is understandable. Breaking BC on a major release > increment is not only ok, I would say it's even expected. Also keep in > mind that big-timers like Facebook and Yahoo! aren't going to blindly > upgrade to the latest version without first making sure their code is up to > current standards (which they should be doing, anyway). +1 > Relevant: http://xkcd.com/1172/ +1 -- regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek lookup http://sks.pkqs.net for KeyID 0xC11F128D /* Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for chaos and madness await thee at its end. */