Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89711
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFi=QfbtX6cTsQKJQSfWgiXRkW1=dB1F5Hj8r741psirWPuajw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d7986bddhrs5d7o2c6r42g6h9to3au5kq0@4ax.com> <90c8ecbc29f8a40a2430306b807a169e@mail.gmail.com>
 <5664AC01.1020602@gmail.com> <97.B3.55814.38095665@pb1.pair.com> <CAFi=QfbtX6cTsQKJQSfWgiXRkW1=dB1F5Hj8r741psirWPuajw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 09:37:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFi=QfbGWjRu=nbHz3HLWxTwpD_bPiiTL3+R0D7oTuAkjantCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141a07c717d4205264fcb76
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
From: oldschooldsl@gmail.com (Adam Howard)

--001a1141a07c717d4205264fcb76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2016, not 2017.  Extended support for nearly 2 years is a bad idea and only
further enables bad practices.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Adam Howard <oldschooldsl@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>

--001a1141a07c717d4205264fcb76--