Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89704 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 20403 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2015 13:58:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Dec 2015 13:58:29 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 2.218.134.247 unknown Received: from [2.218.134.247] ([2.218.134.247:25795] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 97/B3-55814-38095665 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 08:58:28 -0500 Message-ID: <97.B3.55814.38095665@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net References: <90c8ecbc29f8a40a2430306b807a169e@mail.gmail.com> <5664AC01.1020602@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:58:22 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5664AC01.1020602@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 2.218.134.247 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Hi Stas, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > 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? As others have pointed out, there's also the problem of PHP 5 lifetime extension reducing the urgency for users to move to 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. > Support for 5.6 ends in August 2017, that's 20 months away. So it's not quite as bad as that. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/