Drop support for 5.3? Yes. Absolutely. It's unmaintained.
Jump to bleeding edge 5.6? I don't like it because I use 5.5. And I think 5.4
still gets bug fixes, doesn't it?
Making the currently maintained PHP version the minimum requirement sounds like
a good guideline.
On 25. Februar 2015 10:00:
Actually the question is, if we should go with PHP 5.3 or just take the
fancy features of 5.6.
Some might argue "we don't need all features necessarily". Thats often
an argument in Java land, and people stick with Java 5 or 6 in some
frameworks because it can be done without.
I think good and fan
Thanks guys for clarifying.
Agree, PSR-4 autoloading would be another improvement.
Introducing Namespaces increases the PHP requirement from currently
>=5.2.7 (according to the composer.json) to >=5.3.0
On 02/24/2015 07:34 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Hey all,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 19:22
Hey all,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015, at 19:22, Sven Rautenberg wrote:
> You must implement the interface as it is, or you wouldn't be
> implementing it.
>
+1. Either implementing it, or not. As Sven said, 3.x can break bc. We
use semver.org.
>
Offering PSR-3 is incompatible. Releasing version 3.0 sig
You must implement the interface as it is, or you wouldn't be implementing it.
Offering PSR-3 is incompatible. Releasing version 3.0 signals "incompatible to
2.x" all over it. Note that the log levels defined in the RFC PSR-3 is based on
are partly incompatible to the ones of Log4PHP 2.x. So thi
