Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74078 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 58819 invoked from network); 9 May 2014 06:28:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 2014 06:28:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bof@bof.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bof@bof.de; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain bof.de designates 80.242.145.70 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bof@bof.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.242.145.70 mars.intermailgate.com Received: from [80.242.145.70] ([80.242.145.70:45143] helo=mars.intermailgate.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 99/FB-15882-2857C635 for ; Fri, 09 May 2014 02:28:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 17511 invoked by uid 1009); 9 May 2014 08:28:15 +0200 Received: from 209.85.192.50 by mars (envelope-from , uid 89) with qmail-scanner-1.25-st-qms (clamdscan: 0.96.2/18949. spamassassin: 3.3.1. perlscan: 1.25-st-qms. Clear:RC:1(209.85.192.50):. Processed in 0.07509 secs); 09 May 2014 06:28:15 -0000 X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN-Mail-From: bof@bof.de via mars X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN: 1.25-st-qms (Clear:RC:1(209.85.192.50):. Processed in 0.07509 secs Process 17501) Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com (gmail@bof.de@209.85.192.50) by mars.intermailgate.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 May 2014 08:28:15 +0200 Received: by mail-qg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id z60so3918369qgd.37 for ; Thu, 08 May 2014 23:28:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.119.131 with SMTP id z3mr11389920qaq.91.1399616893803; Thu, 08 May 2014 23:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.33.230 with HTTP; Thu, 8 May 2014 23:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.33.230 with HTTP; Thu, 8 May 2014 23:28:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2c470224f5eca827363a3c5878bc709d@mail.gmail.com> References: <5369CED9.5010001@php.net> <4339111475046055305@unknownmsgid> <578A5A21-A820-42AD-A218-FB8049F63B82@zend.com> <3A72C770-9A9F-40C9-9DFE-F40478709BA8@ajf.me> <311084565853739035@unknownmsgid> <536BA9FE.1090408@lerdorf.com> <2c470224f5eca827363a3c5878bc709d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 08:28:13 +0200 Message-ID: To: Zeev Suraski Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf , internals , Sebastian Bergmann , Andi Gutmans , Andrea Faulds Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6dcc2ac6e3e204f8f1b3b3 Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] phpng: Refactored PHP Engine with Big Performance Improvement From: bof@bof.de (Patrick Schaaf) --047d7b6dcc2ac6e3e204f8f1b3b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Am 08.05.2014 23:25 schrieb "Zeev Suraski" : > > 1. You're right it buys operational stability; But then, people who'll go > on a major PHP version upgrade will expect some level of operational > instability (we should hope so at least, because they'll probably get it). > App breakages are an order of magnitude (or two or three) more painful than > relatively simple changes to monitoring tools or administrative scripts. In practise, I would never ever do both in the same timeframe. Otherwise I wouldn't know whether apparent problems stem from monitoring changes, deployment changes, or the PHP upgrade itself. Right now I can pretty easily test new PHP versions, wrt. app compatibility, by throwing them onto one or the other development server, and/or onto one of a dozen deployment servers, because I can easily revert that when it does not work. With mod_php missing, I won't do that. And that will probably shift adoption of a PHP++ into the future by 6 months, or something like that. Not that any of that matters in the grand scheme of things. I'm just one small site in the whole Internet.... best regards Patrick --047d7b6dcc2ac6e3e204f8f1b3b3--