Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89708
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <97.B3.55814.38095665@pb1.pair.com>
References: <d7986bddhrs5d7o2c6r42g6h9to3au5kq0@4ax.com> <90c8ecbc29f8a40a2430306b807a169e@mail.gmail.com>
 <5664AC01.1020602@gmail.com> <97.B3.55814.38095665@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 09:32:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFi=QfbtX6cTsQKJQSfWgiXRkW1=dB1F5Hj8r741psirWPuajw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114020a2e6780b05264fbb66
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
From: oldschooldsl@gmail.com (Adam Howard)

--001a114020a2e6780b05264fbb66
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I see the same people who had a problem with the EOL (end of life) date for
5.4, 5.5, are going to be the same people who have a problem with 5.6 EOL.
Extended the support will only enable those and others to validate their
excuse for not needing to migrate to the new code base.

I agree, a date should be made and set.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a114020a2e6780b05264fbb66--