Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79752
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.212.180 as permitted sender)
References: <8C1EFD82-CFE0-4D01-9231-2A1658B182A6@ajf.me> <CABBJUpfLCjWCgOUneN2O2M7qP2WBf8OgbVrdB-jm+Fn_dDJvVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4NrGBi-YpYz_pOgg=BBhymp5Y4Re9XOwnnY47BTiXA5Oxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <b110fda6282aaf482e7906fcccdb00ab@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-PCH5SGuk1L+9y4FBYmdC8GP05UOFnw+iupTy+Av65AGJCnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c4c3b84eb3b5c5e2451ee3c585fd95c2@mail.gmail.com> <EA391654-F731-4B45-9E45-EE780183EEE4@gmail.com>
 <CABRjmp__TD6PjNTiETgD-jSmLSE4cuj7AoOzQh+zmnp6XN5G=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMUwpuQV1ChBM2KhNix8gKZFOTrooaZx7sqzamcnbVxf=g-RJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f30e79c9670457f0aa6c6e53845017ff@mail.gmail.com> <CADajX4Da_r+37N7qQXL22TH4RQVs390C3Z1+o+dgy0OxKNRjzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADajX4Da_r+37N7qQXL22TH4RQVs390C3Z1+o+dgy0OxKNRjzA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQHEAwp930Oucd9RrwDs9oQRz4U5JAKjqEmtAMffvUwBqetzRgLNlk2CAW8qVj4CM2w/iQOd6aJpAlYrjDcBt9VNnAGYQ2jcnASmIKA=
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:19:45 +0200
Message-ID: <d1681262d0c30004c524c415aa2b1fb5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: adam@adamharvey.name [mailto:adam@adamharvey.name] On
> Behalf Of Adam Harvey
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 12:10 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
>
> On 16 December 2014 at 14:00, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> >> - We cannot patch 5.6 to add any Warnings-of-any-kind (stable
> >> release, under release process that forbids that)
> >
> > What part of the release process forbids that?
>
> None, but I'd still advocate releasing a new minor because there's plenty
> of
> anecdata suggesting that our userbase tend to consider 5.x.y and 5.x.y+z
> to
> be the same in terms of features. We used to see this confusion in ##php a
> lot over things like crypt() algorithm support changing over the course of
> 5.3:
> trying to explain that you don't want to use anything before 5.3.7 is
> actually
> surprisingly difficult, whereas saying "5.4 fixes this" is easy.

I actually agree with that.

My view, though, that if we think that delivering those deprecation messages
is critical, we're facing a choice between two less-than-ideal options.  The
5.7 option defeats the purpose for which it's built - getting a substantial
number of people to upgrade and see those messages in the first place.
It'll also create an awkward and maybe even silly situation where we'd have
two active versions - both with its own monthly releases, but effectively
virtually identical to each other in every regard except for these messages.

Zeev