Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70830
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52B6B9DE.2020004@lsces.co.uk>
References: <52B5522A.4040709@lsces.co.uk>
	<52B61756.9090202@gmail.com>
	<52B620D7.6090200@evermeet.cx>
	<CAFWS2+EpQ_pEfL14P-7wFLWA+JZ3QjUvxH=GbVJ9zGjx9wVjcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52B63FC6.80708@evermeet.cx>
	<52B6B9DE.2020004@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 11:21:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH6c6czKf0ONBtwWW2yQ_ZweKSADHwofwF0uMeLtMAhufQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149cc48473e7d04ee1cde0b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Censorship in php
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--089e0149cc48473e7d04ee1cde0b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2013.12.22. 11:05, "Lester Caine" <lester@lsces.co.uk> ezt =C3=ADrta:
>
> Helmut Tessarek wrote:
>>>
>>> Thousands? No, many, many, millions. If you break PHP, you break Yahoo,
>>> >Wikipedia, Wordpress, Facebook.... many millions of sites. Maybe
billions
>>> >at this point.
>>
>> But changing default behavior does not break things? But this seems to
be ok -
>> at least sometimes. So there are acceptable changes that break millions
of
>> sites and then there are others.
>
>
> How many of the big sites are actually using a stock build of PHP? I'm
not talking about the privately run wordpress and jumla copies, but the
core websites themselves? They forked PHP a long time ago?
>
> I have complained in the past and been shouted down over the fact that
while 'yes' one can configure a PHP5.4 installation to run PHP5.2 code,
there is a much higher chance that it will simply give you a white screen.
I'm not currently running 5.5 ... there are not enough hours in the day!
But I believe that many of you now understand that anything not rewritten
to be e_strict complaint can't safely be left on a modern PHP
infrastructure? Ploughing on blindly ignoring or suppressing 'opposing'
views is the censorship I am talking about. Be that on the main
php.netcontrolled sites or on the newly promoted third party ones!
>
> Where is the roadmap for PHP controlled from? It seems at present that
there is simply no control at all over how the project is managed.
>
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -----------------------------
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=3Dcontact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>

For me it seems that you used the new php.net design as an excuse to bring
up like the 100th time that how php is broken and should stop evolving so
you have an easier time to maintaind your old code.

Ofc. this is one use-case (and the reason why we care about BC so much),
but this has nothing to do with the fact that some people put a bunch of
work into a new modern php.net design or that they added that uservoice
widget to have an easier way to get feedback from the visitors.

Imo the fact, that through this years you are still here and you are free
to repeat the same arguments (which you seem to be the minority on the
list) shows that we don't do censorship.

I think if there would be enough interest/need of an old but security
backported php fork, it would already exists.
If you really need that, your best bet would be picking a distro with long
support cycle(rhel comes to mind) or starting the fork yourself.
But don't forget that the new versions aren't just bells and whistles but
there are a bunch of bugfixes and performance improvements, and some of
those can't be done without breaking BC, so new versions and the need of
manual review would exists even if we would have stopped adding new
features.

--089e0149cc48473e7d04ee1cde0b--