Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89304
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56523F74.9040708@lerdorf.com>
References: <CAAyV7nG9E-7STWq2Hpe=y5Uf0nWzGMhka+FUX1p1FVNtYNVTJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<112FFBCD-8445-40BC-B92F-3A97D3E97C4C@zend.com>
	<CAAyV7nE0bQba3Wr2yi8FbtDfDA=8ZSFz9dbQG5uZ+eF9bick2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<56523F74.9040708@lerdorf.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:07:16 -1000
Message-ID: <CABDNdAFaWQoftXk2eJa7-y1BfAp4RWZZzAAXoES-0H8FF3xS-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] INDRECT in arrays causes count() to become unpredictable
From: pjsturgeon@gmail.com (Phil Sturgeon)

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote=
:
> On 11/22/2015 06:18 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>> Zeev,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22 =D7=91=D7=A0=D7=95=D7=91=D7=B3 2015, at 0:47, Anthony Ferrara <i=
rcmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think this is significant enough to be a blocker to gold and that we
>>>> should fix it prior to release.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, unless we think fixing this would require breaking binary compati=
bility (which I don't think is the case) - this shouldn't block 7.0.0.  7.0=
.0 is a lot more about getting people to start paying attention to 7.0 and =
start testing their codebase against it - finding both the incompatibilitie=
s in their code and, undoubtedly - the bugs we failed to find.  I wish we c=
ould say this would be the last issue we find in 7.0, but I think we can al=
l agree it's wishful thinking...
>>
>> Consider that Distros may very well pick whatever we call stable for
>> LTS releases. Meaning that non-critical (crash/security) bugs that we
>> miss may wind up living on for a VERY long time. If we don't intend .0
>> to be stable, then what's the point of versioning in the first place?
>>
>> Xinchen,
>>
>> Very interesting on the fix. I do think it's important for this to
>> land with 7, but at least we can have the discussion.
>
> I agree with Zeev here and I had a chat with Anatol about this tonight.
> This is a .0.0 release. Nobody is going to take a .0.0 and push it
> straight to production. And it is not going to part of any sort of LTS
> distro either. It's not like LTS distros don't pick up point releases.
> There is no way we will go 2 weeks without finding something for quite a
> while still which can drag things out indefinitely. The question is
> whether this is significant enough to postpone further. Personally I
> don't think it is. Let's get 7.0.0 out the door and get ourselves on
> track for regular point releases without any of this "perfect-release"
> stress.
>
> -Rasmus
>

Sorry to pop by here but Zeev and Rasmus are saying some things in
general that I strongly disagree with. I was going to just carry on
with my day after mentioning my concerns on Twitter, but I was asked
to raise them in here as well. Here goes.

Firstly, Zeev: "7.0.0 is a lot more about getting people to start
paying attention to 7.0 and start testing their codebase against it "

This is absolutely not at all what a final release is for. Whilst
nobody expects a major final release to be 100% bug free (no software
is), knowing about a bug and saying "meh whatever let those nerds find
out what broke later" is just not ok. Not ok at all.

Fix bugs as they come up, absolutely - that's how we all do
open-source - but don't just shout YOLO and ship it anyway, especially
when folks like Anthony are saying they think it's a concern. Nobody
replied here saying "I don't think this bug is going to be an issue in
the wild because X", you just replied saying "Who cares".

Rasmus, with all due respect, I think you work in a slightly different
realm of reality to a huge number of PHP developers. To say "This is a
.0.0 release. Nobody is going to take a .0.0 and push it straight to
production." is very very very inaccurate of many developers
realities. That's like Apple saying "Who gives a shit if we ship El
Capitan with known bugs, it's not like people upgrade when it comes
out." shortly before their upgrade servers go down because 90% of
Macbook owners try to upgrade immediately.

I know a fair few people - like myself - hold off due to concern of
bugs being there for a while, and many people wait for a patch, but to
say those who will upgrade quickly are statistically insignificant is
completely and entirely false.

People might think that hosts will barely even have PHP 7.0.X ready
before 7.0.1 is out, but they are unfortunately ignorant of the speed
in which hosts these days offer new versions. I get PR requests to
http://phpversions.info/php-7/ before I see the PHP.net announcement
emails half the time, and the other half are <48 hours after. Hosts
upgrade quickly these days, so you can't use their previously
snail-like pace as an argument for shipping broken stuff and hoping
nobody will use it.


If you folks want to have a conversation about the impact and
significance of this specific bug then that's cool; I defer to Anthony
and others smarter than myself for that. I just ask that you please
please please don't use those "YOLO F**K IT WHO CARES" arguments
you've used above. They're not accurate of the community and they make
the project seem reckless and laughable.


tl:dr; .0.0 is not a RC.