Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89087
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEYWF=7RHWoUrsShs0x_M7RRTjv2VGHF0Lu-ZiQBiebnZq7yYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3187501.to7rK1FKUl@mcmic-probook>
	<58.47.13519.54409365@pb1.pair.com>
	<2499781.S8xp2TXu1I@mcmic-probook>
	<CAH-PCH5HHFySHt3oMgVR_D8yJDo5_jp_kwcuk1t-wCbh6F2KVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<563B5903.3000807@heigl.org>
	<CAH-PCH6V2xda1=Ag38_6Ur6coBcDbn_=ZJk0vsJHQTz9Q+s=wA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEYWF=7RHWoUrsShs0x_M7RRTjv2VGHF0Lu-ZiQBiebnZq7yYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:37:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH4_JTtC+JOXsTe5nTjo5pcqDsFt30JcKx2ddefbQEexbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bishop@php.net
Cc: Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?C=C3=B4me_Chilliet?= <come@opensides.be>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145a96ab222010523d041af
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Small regression in PHP-LDAP
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a1145a96ab222010523d041af
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Am 05.11.15 um 14:14 schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
>> > [...]
>> > > I would keep the old behavior for 5.6, even if that was unintended
>> nobody
>> > > complained about it(so removing it isn't a bugfix per se), so I see =
no
>> > > reason to break userland code working before in a micro version.
>> > > for PHP-7.0 we can remove the old undocumented behavior but drop a
>> > mention
>> > > in NEWS/upgrading.
>> > >
>> > As it's already broken in the last 3 micro-versions I'm not sure wheth=
er
>> > it makes things more complicated to "re-enable" it or not.
>> >
>> > Personally I'd say leave it as it is now (and try to prohibit such
>> > things in future).
>> >
>> 5.6 is not even halfway until EOL, so I think that argument of keeping t=
he
>> BC break because there are already 3 micro versions affected it is a bit
>> weak:
>> http://php.net/supported-versions.php
>
>
> Some are vendor-pinned and can't get the upgrade, so they have to fix
> their code anyway.  Those who can upgrade would have to fix their code by
> 7.0, and IMO it seems better to fix it now while its on their mind.
>
> We're talking about a very small surface area of affected code, one that
> is easily changed with a sed. The damage of "breaking the behavior" is
> already done. Fixing user code or upgrading the engine is the only
> resolution. To me, fixing user code is the best solution: it's long term
> necessary, it's short term easy.  If this were breaking documented code (=
as
> happened with array_unique in 5.2.9), then I'd say fix the engine. But it=
's
> not, it's breaking undocumented side-effected user code.  That to me soun=
ds
> like a user code fix.
>

and some will be pinned to the version before the BC break, some after the
possible fix, some will backport this fix anyways when their users complain=
.

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a1145a96ab222010523d041af--