Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89663
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain fedoraproject.org from 217.70.183.195 cause and error)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <d7986bddhrs5d7o2c6r42g6h9to3au5kq0@4ax.com>
 <90c8ecbc29f8a40a2430306b807a169e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56647839.9000009@fedoraproject.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:02:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <90c8ecbc29f8a40a2430306b807a169e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
From: remi@fedoraproject.org (Remi Collet)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le 06/12/2015 13:38, Zeev Suraski a écrit :

> IMHO, I think we need to look at the 5.6 lifecycle very differently
> from how we look at 5.5 and earlier.  This is really the 5.x
> lifecycle as it's the last version that's relatively completely
> painless to upgrade to from 5.x (especially 5.3 and later).

+1: last version 5 should probably be managed differently that other
5.x version.

> PHP 4 was maintained for 4+ years after PHP 5.0 was released (5.0
> release July 2004, PHP 4 support ended 8/8/08).  Not saying that we
> need to do the same for 5, but one year upgrade cycle for everyone
> on 5.x doesn't sound reasonable.  I don't have a firm opinion on
> 'active support' vs. 'security only' - I think the latter much more
> closely defines what people truly care about in terms of whether
> they feel comfortable having the version still deployed or not.
> 
> At the very least I think we should give 5.6 24 months of lifetime
> from PHP 7.0's release date (i.e. take it until Dec 2017),

I agree having only 8 months (active support) + 12 months (security)
seems very short.

I will really prefer to have cycle aligned to new version

so active support until Dec 2016
and security support until Dec 2017.


> but I think we should also consider either extending it even
> further, or at least paying attention to the situation on the
> ground in terms of PHP 5's popularity as we get closer to that EOL
> date.  Personally I'm leaning towards having a firm date further
> down the road than a 'flexible' one, so that we give people a clear
> and reasonable timeline to upgrade - without risking that they
> "won't take us seriously" and assume we'd delay the EOL.

Yes, It make sense to me to extend, if needed, for some more months
the security only time.

And of course, this sould be planed and announced as soon as possible
(still possible to extend, but not to reduce, after annoucement).


Remi.

> 
> Zeev
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlZkeDkACgkQYUppBSnxahjkZACgjkrXHjrVELOUQsYfyRpd6jMW
5LwAoIkqGb0eJeJaeFTQd++W1kPg5d3p
=KiiI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----