Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97098 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 90442 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2016 23:28:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Nov 2016 23:28:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=alice@librelamp.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=alice@librelamp.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain librelamp.com designates 45.79.96.192 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: alice@librelamp.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 45.79.96.192 librelamp.com Received: from [45.79.96.192] ([45.79.96.192:42332] helo=librelamp.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 6C/C3-65233-BA132385 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 18:28:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-50-184-37-123.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.184.37.123]) by librelamp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54A733FA for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 23:28:40 +0000 (UTC) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <94840a5a-39e2-5255-e9c5-c011f00d392b@gmail.com> <7604bd74-bfd7-fe3b-a9b2-4717187b6c52@gmx.de> <3dc880ba-3a40-1927-62f6-32a2e2b2143f@gmail.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:28:39 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecations for PHP 7.2 From: alice@librelamp.com (Alice Wonder) On 11/20/2016 02:32 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > > I'm not sure what you mean by "political". The big challenge which comes > up again and again, is that take up of new versions of PHP is low. You > can blame the users for that if you like, but the reality is there's no > point rushing your shiny feature into a release that 90% of the user > base won't install. > For the perspective of a user on this - I always skip a major version. I'm running 5.6.x on my productions, and preparing for 7.1 I am running 7.1.0RC on one test server and my workstation. I'll probably run 7.1 on production fairly soon after release but likely skip 7.2. I skip because once I have a web application deployed, I'm not looking to change it for awhile, security updates sure but I don't need to run the latest major release when the release I have works fine. I suspect many are the same way, and I don't see that as a bad thing. Releases no longer maintained by upstream obviously should not be run, but if the release one has works for the purpose, what problem is solved by upgrading to latest major release? It's time consuming and expensive because there is always code that needs to be changed and tested.