On 4/30/12 3:07 PM, Thomas Lundquist wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:17:58PM +0100, Matt Robinson wrote:
Btw, an expiration of november 2012 for symfony 1.4 is way too early for
it to be called *long term* support.
Why? It's 3 years: November 2009 to November 2012. Do you mean that there's
not enough overlap between LTS releases? That's certainly regrettable. It
doesn't mean 1.4 didn't enjoy long term support though.
I mean it's not long enough. If it were three years after a viable option
to the LTS was around, ok. Right now the *only* LTS for Symfony is
1.4 which will be EOL in short time. Without any replacement.
People will be using 1.4 based applications for way way longer than
three years since 1.4.0 was released. It has been their only option for
quite a lot of that time.
Three years is not much of a life time of a big application, even
disregarding COBOL/Bank systems that has life spans of 20-30 years.
You do not want to write off a million dollar investment over three
years, not everyone has the scope of "make it just run until we are
bought and rich".
If there's going to be a long period where there's no release of Symfony
with long term support, then that's obviously a concern.
Which is a concern today, there are no Symfony release I can trust will
be supported for the *next* three years.
As far as I know, supporting a web framework for 3 years is not
something that is proposed by many frameworks out there.
Anyway, as I said before, we will probably continue to support 1.4 after
2012, mostly for PHP forward compatibility and security issues. I will
write a blog post about this soon.
And picking Symfony now is not easy, whatever you do you know you are
going to have to change quite alot in short to middle term.
And picking bundles to use are even harder, you never really know which will
be maintained upwards to the LTS which then will make self-maintaining
third party bundles manageable.
There's certainly a
risk of this happening if 2.2 isn't released before November. I expect that
1.4 will continue to receive essential security and PHP-compatibility fixes
for some time after November though. It's definitely not going to just stop
working.
But no one will take responsibility for it and that should worry
the users.
Sensio does. If you are concerned about stability for a very long period
of time, and if you are building a million dollar website with Symfony,
Sensio can probably help you.
Fabien
And maybe scare them off from Symfony2 where the story seems to be the same.
I guess I'm a dinosaur.
I don't think you're a dinosaur, I just think you're applying an expectation
about version numbering that hasn't been officially stated by the Symfony
team.
Not entirely correct, I am applying my view on how it *should* be while
knowing how it is.
In the case of Symfony LTS releases in the past, the minor versions
have been the 3rd digit, not the 2nd. The 2nd digit version number has
nearly always broken compatibility in some ways (except for 1.3/1.4, where
1.4 was actually a subset of 1.3). Perhaps this should be made more clear,
but it's at least internally consistent :)
That's true.
I'd like to see backports too, but only on LTS releases to keep them fresh.
If 2.0 isn't one of them, then we're pretty much flying by the seat of our
pants until 2.2 lands.
And chasing the changes.
Thomas.
--
If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to
security at symfony-project.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "symfony developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
