Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89088
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH4_JTtC+JOXsTe5nTjo5pcqDsFt30JcKx2ddefbQEexbQ@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> <CAH-PCH4_JTtC+JOXsTe5nTjo5pcqDsFt30JcKx2ddefbQEexbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:53:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFi=QfZDo2y7ZMRJSe2haFOAOeU8rmoaBOqZ=M-J0Hx2kBknSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: bishop@php.net, 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=047d7b3a87f6c8c39a0523d153e4
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Small regression in PHP-LDAP
From: oldschooldsl@gmail.com (Adam Howard)

--047d7b3a87f6c8c39a0523d153e4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't think it is possible to make everyone happy all the time.  I think
this should be kept for a user code fix.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 se=
e
> 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
> whether
> >> > 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
> the
> >> BC break because there are already 3 micro versions affected it is a b=
it
> >> 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 tha=
t
> > 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 ter=
m
> > 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
> sounds
> > like a user code fix.
> >
>
> and some will be pinned to the version before the BC break, some after th=
e
> possible fix, some will backport this fix anyways when their users
> complain.
>
> --
> Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>

--047d7b3a87f6c8c39a0523d153e4--