On 06/06/2011 08:38 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > Stas Malyshev wrote: >>> For many of us, the 5.2 branch HAS been the 'long term stability' >>> version of PHP >> >> Any version beyond it's support period would be "long term stability" >> (as in "pining for the fjords" stability) by definition. If somebody >> want to backport patches and provide builds for it for any period he >> likes - sure, but nobody volunteered so far, AFAIK. > > This begs the question "Who decided that the only vesion of PHP > available to a potentially large section of the user base should be end > of lifed?" When was it voted on and was the problems of using a later > version on some existing platforms even considered in that discussion? > This I think is the crux of all the problems ... nobody actaully > considers the end users at all?
We did, the folks who actually work on this stuff. In order to move forward we need to drop old branches. Right now we are working on 3 branches, which has proven over time to be right at the limit of what we can handle. It may even be a branch more than we can handle. And much like Apache, I don't consider it our job to do binary builds for people. It is very nice that a few people have volunteered to build Windows binaries and they are available on windows.php.net as a convenience, but our primary focus is the source distribution and that's where the bulk of the attention goes. If people are building critical systems that rely on binary-only releases, they really should reconsider how they do things and at the very least install a compiler on their platform of choice and learn how to build stuff themselves. As far as I know nothing that was available in 5.2 is not available in 5.3 in source form. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
