On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Johannes Schlüter wrote: > On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:20 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > Is LTS really something we need to provide? Seems to me like this is > > something the linux vendors take care of for the most part. Of course > > this leaves windows, OSX (and maybe some others). > > Well, I don't see it as loooooooooooooooooooooooooong term support, but
Using LTS as a term confused me on that one :P > rather as way to enable quick feature cycles, so that feature releases > can move faster than anybody can upgrade to them (ok, that's a bit too > fast the, but hope you get the point), while new features can get in > production sooner, where wanted. > > We could also use the names "feature preview release" and "stable > release"(=lts) ... which would bring us close to MySQL's model and their > confusing version numbering (MySQL 5.1 is the stable there, then MySQL > 5.4 was announced as preview, now MySQL 5.5 is the current preview > release, neither 5.4 nor 5.5 are "stable", "GA", though) I still don't think this is a good idea though. That would me we have (as example) 5.2 in LTS, 5.6 as stable and 5.7 in trunk? How much do you (at that point) like supporting a 4/5 year old version? Do you hvae that much spare time? I think our current way work pretty well. There is 5.2 which is security-fix supported, 5.3 that is supported and trunk/5.4 that's on the way to alpha. Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
