Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85572 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 52081 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2015 23:05:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Mar 2015 23:05:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.17.22 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.17.22] ([212.227.17.22:55269] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 59/00-51287-CC6D9155 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:05:49 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([88.134.68.210]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lx8ZJ-1ZVGK01RIv-016iOJ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:05:45 +0200 Message-ID: <5519D6CF.9030909@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:05:51 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanislav Malyshev , Rowan Collins , internals@lists.php.net References: <55193060.5000804@php.net> <55199AE8.4090100@gmail.com> <5519B3E3.1070102@gmail.com> <5519C9E0.6010001@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5519C9E0.6010001@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:DNwQW4v8pcDBarB3mpA7WZPh07rGEWrmX/14ZvtOkGodLKBgOte 8T+YCUXVFoWvt7ybyQ8JtYGIPxRCBwtGBM0iOnBk4IyegAE4Krzi2fDnCq90HTBISWgBQQN A9gGDPQ+l6u/xY/Wb0m2dHtA32SK5w9NUhCtoy50X02INCYhNy+ZAfWltoKLUFOJBeFtPwB e5IHo5x5FqzjkKppw56Qw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] What's our official stance on small self-containedadditions in a micro version From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker) Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> I can certainly see value in a special case for including things in both >> 5.6 and 7.x, both before and after 7.0 is released, but the the case for >> backporting anything other than a genuine bug fix to 5.5.x right now >> seems fairly weak, as will the case for backporting to 7.0.x after 7.1.0 >> is released (by which point 5.6.x will presumably be in its >> security-only phase). > > That means right now any enhancement somebody would propose would be > just released somewhere towards the end of next year. And since nobody > switches instantly, especially to the next major, their timeframe to use > it would be something like 4-5 years. I would have zero motivation as a > userland developer to work on a small change like adding an option that > I could benefit from in 5 years maybe. Would you? Have you considered developers targeting shared hosting? Working on an improvement they have to wait for five years to use it is most certainly annoying. However, introducing this feature in a revision might not really help them at all. -- Christoph M. Becker