On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Alain Williams <a...@phcomp.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:27:12PM +0000, Rowan Collins wrote: > > > PEAR is not a single organisation who can mass update all the > > modules; the guidelines could be updated, if they haven't been > > already, but there would still be a whole repository full of > > libraries which used this. > > > > Now, whether that's acceptable or not, I don't know, but it does > > highlight the size of the compatibility break. > > How many servers are stuck on PHP 4 ? > > Of those 'stuck' servers, how many have applications still under active > development ? > > The point is: how many people would get annoyed if PEAR stopped supporting > PHP 4 ? > > IMHO: making PHP 5.3+ the PEAR baseline would not seem unreasonable. > > There were already discussion about bumping the php requirements for the next PEAR package: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.pear.devel/50823 But what it is more important is that even if some PEAR packages will be getting new releases with modern/refactored APIs with bumped major versions, that will still not break the already existing installation, and people will still be able to install the latest package version which supports their php version (and it would be still possible to continue releasing patch versions for security updates for the php4 compatible versions). So while I agree that PEAR in it's current form will be the biggest public repository with code affected by this change, it isn't like they can't move forward or that users using PEAR for their projects will be left without an upgrade path and plenty of time to execute it. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
