Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89670
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.170 as permitted sender)
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Jan Ehrhardt <phpdev@ehrhardt.nl>,
 internals@lists.php.net
References: <d7986bddhrs5d7o2c6r42g6h9to3au5kq0@4ax.com>
 <90c8ecbc29f8a40a2430306b807a169e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5664AC01.1020602@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:43:29 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; 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: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> 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).

We could make 5.6 an LTS release with extended support, but the question
is given the code delta, would all fixes' authors be willing to do
essentially double work? Would extension authors be willing to maintain
two branches long-term? And, if that proves to be hard - wouldn't we end
up with a situation where they choose to only maintain PHP 5 version
(since it's easier and that's where 90% of people are) and extensions go
unsupported for PHP 7 for a long time, creating an adoption problem for 7?

I do think we probably need to extend the lifetime of 5.6 (and make an
RFC on it) since I see no way to have everybody to adopt PHP 7 in mere 8
months, but we should have a defined EOL date ASAP.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com