Hi,
after 5.4.0 was released we had a discussion on 5.3 EOL. Even though it
wasn't properly documented the overall consensus was to go with option
one from https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php53eol "One year with bugs fixes
followed by one year with security fixes only"
So as quick reminder and help for
On 10 December 2012 18:58, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> As of this date the 5.3 branch will go to extended support and should
> receive security fixes only. Releases will be made based on need.
>
> Please mind that the above schedule is tentative and unpredictable
> events might change this.
>
> Com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 10.12.2012 13:21, schrieb Adam Harvey:
> RHEL 6, Debian 6, Ubuntu 12.04 (not the latest stable version,
> unlike the others, but the LTS version), Mac OS X 10.8 (and many of
> the derivatives of these distros, particularly RHEL) are all
> shipping
Hi,
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 20:21 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
> At the very least, I think we should keep full support going until
> 5.5.0 final is out, which it strikes me probably won't be in February
> at our current rate.
>
> Beyond that, I don't particularly want to create a rod for our own
> ba
On 10 December 2012 20:51, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 20:21 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting we necessarily extend full support, but I wonder if
>> one year of critical bug fixes and security updates will be enough.
>
> In my opinion key for this is PR.
hi Johannes,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after 5.4.0 was released we had a discussion on 5.3 EOL. Even though it
> wasn't properly documented the overall consensus was to go with option
> one from https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php53eol "One year with bugs fix
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 21:08 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
> To be honest, Debian isn't really the distribution I'm worried about.
> Ondřej does good work, and Debian Wheezy has PHP 5.4 and isn't miles
> off, it seems.
>
> RHEL and Ubuntu are mostly the ones I'm thinking of here — RHEL 7 is
> supposed
Hi,
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 14:10 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> There was no consensus, I am not sure where you get the idea.
By spending the time to go through the thread, taking the opinions
stated there, filtering out side discussions (like LTS based release
models etc) evaluating it (partly subje
On 10.12.2012 15:24, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 21:08 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> To be honest, Debian isn't really the distribution I'm worried about.
>> Ondřej does good work, and Debian Wheezy has PHP 5.4 and isn't miles
>> off, it seems.
>>
>> RHEL and Ubuntu are mostly t
Has APC's PHP 5.4.x support matured yet to the point where folks are
comfortable there's no environment in which you really shouldn't run
5.3?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Florian Anderiasch
wrote:
> On 10.12.2012 15:24, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 21:08 +0800, Adam Harv
(Really shouldn't run 5.4, rather)
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Has APC's PHP 5.4.x support matured yet to the point where folks are
> comfortable there's no environment in which you really shouldn't run
> 5.3?
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Florian Anderiasch
> wr
hi,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Has APC's PHP 5.4.x support matured yet to the point where folks are
> comfortable there's no environment in which you really shouldn't run
> 5.3?
For most apps it should work fine now. There are one or two issues in
some edge cases but w
Sure. I wasn't asking for myself but rather in the context of how
close 5.3 is to being reasonable to deprecate.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
>> Has APC's PHP 5.4.x support matured yet to the point where folks a
On 12/10/2012 12:59 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Sure. I wasn't asking for myself but rather in the context of how
> close 5.3 is to being reasonable to deprecate.
APC is at the point now for 5.4 where I don't think there are any more
edge cases than we have in 5.3. Neither is perfect, but it is close
2012/12/10 Adam Harvey :
> On 10 December 2012 18:58, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> As of this date the 5.3 branch will go to extended support and should
>> receive security fixes only. Releases will be made based on need.
>>
>> Please mind that the above schedule is tentative and unpredictable
>> e
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 08:55 +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> 2012/12/10 Adam Harvey :
> > On 10 December 2012 18:58, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> >> As of this date the 5.3 branch will go to extended support and should
> >> receive security fixes only. Releases will be made based on need.
> >>
> >> Plea
Hi Internals,
Why not EOL until Zend has it's ZCE program up to date with the latest
version?
Kind regards,
Chris van Dam
Op 11-12-12 02:29 schreef Johannes Schlüter :
>On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 08:55 +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> 2012/12/10 Adam Harvey :
>> > On 10 December 2012 18:58, Johannes S
Hi,
2012/12/11 Johannes Schlüter :
> Well, people don't trust .0 versions, so we then should wait for 5.5.1
> or 5.5.2 ... but by then 5.6 will already be in development, so why not
> wait for 5.6?
+1
It's much better!
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohg...@ohgaki.net
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developme
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/12/11 Johannes Schlüter :
>> Well, people don't trust .0 versions, so we then should wait for 5.5.1
>> or 5.5.2 ... but by then 5.6 will already be in development, so why not
>> wait for 5.6?
>
> +1
>
> It's much better!
what's
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> what's about:
>
> - announce 5.3 EOL plan with 5.5 final release
>
> then:
>
> - EOL by release of php-next (a year later)
>
> or
>
> - EOL by release of php-next+1 (two years later)
>
> depending on which option got accepted.
In all these
hi,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> what's about:
>>
>> - announce 5.3 EOL plan with 5.5 final release
>>
>> then:
>>
>> - EOL by release of php-next (a year later)
>>
>> or
>>
>> - EOL by release of php-next+1 (tw
On 12/10/12 8:32 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 14:10 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
There was no consensus, I am not sure where you get the idea.
By spending the time to go through the thread, taking the opinions
stated there, filtering out side discussions (like LTS based
22 matches
Mail list logo
