Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of Sun Oct 23 18:36:04 -0400 2011:
> So, I've registered a blueprint for UDS here:
>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-p-php54
>
> There's no guarantee we will be able to fit it in, so make sure to
> subscribe to it if you are interest
Thomas Goirand wrote:
There was quite some changes with some resulting issue when switching
Squeeze from 5.2 to 5.3, for example having a deprecation notice warning
about return of a reference, or the removal of some function. This*did*
break things, especially when dealing with XML or other pars
On 10/25/2011 06:18 AM, de...@lucato.it wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have always disliked the lack of modern packages on Debian/Ubuntu
> distros, I feel like minor are misused as major versions, with an
> exaggerated fear to upgrade.
There was quite some changes with some resulting issue when switching
Squ
Excerpts from devis's message of Mon Oct 24 15:18:14 -0700 2011:
> Hi,
>
> I have always disliked the lack of modern packages on Debian/Ubuntu distros,
> I feel like minor are misused as major versions, with an exaggerated fear to
> upgrade. It's like building web sites for IE6 because people are
Am 25.10.2011 00:18, schrieb de...@lucato.it:
> As a user, I would really encourage to include the latest stable 5.x and
> provide to the community all the available 5.x upgrade during the next 5
> years (5.4, 5.5 etc). Those 105 php apps should be maintained or removed,
> not used as an excuse to
hi Clint,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> I appreciate the sentiments of all who have weighed in on this, and I
> do want to make sure that we are paying attention to the greater PHP
> community's needs, not just Ubuntu's users. Shipping really old PHP
> versions is defini
Hi,
I have always disliked the lack of modern packages on Debian/Ubuntu distros,
I feel like minor are misused as major versions, with an exaggerated fear to
upgrade. It's like building web sites for IE6 because people are not allowed
to upgrade to IE9, very frustrating for developers and hard to
Just my two cents,
Most likely someone that has a system that they expect to last for five years
is going to set it up and forget about it. So they probably don't care that
it's up to date. They just want it to work.
If not they'll likely either compile their own php or be updating their syste
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 03:36:04PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> I appreciate the sentiments of all who have weighed in on this, and I
> do want to make sure that we are paying attention to the greater PHP
> community's needs, not just Ubuntu's users. Shipping really old PHP
> versions is definitely
Excerpts from Hannes Magnusson's message of Sat Oct 22 04:03:50 -0700 2011:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 22:52, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Hi everyone. I'm trying to plan things for Ubuntu's upcoming 12.04 LTS
> > release. LTS stands for Long Term Support, and it will be supported by
> > Canonical for 5
Am 22.10.2011 17:36, schrieb Lester Caine:
> Johannes Schlüter wrote:
There is also a lot to be said for going with what is known to be stable
for
> > an LTS release.
>>> >
>>> > Please do not begin with this discussion again. It is confusing for
>>> > the readers and totally
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
There is also a lot to be said for going with what is known to be stable for
> > an LTS release.
>
> Please do not begin with this discussion again. It is confusing for
> the readers and totally unrelated. There is no LTS in the release
> process RFC but every relea
2011/10/22 Johannes Schlüter :
>> > There is also a lot to be said for going with what is known to be stable
>> > for
>> > an LTS release.
>> Please do not begin with this discussion again. It is confusing for
>> the readers and totally unrelated. There is no LTS in the release
>> process RFC but
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 16:39 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> >
> > There is also a lot to be said for going with what is known to be stable for
> > an LTS release.
>
> Please do not begin with this discussion again. It is confusing for
>
hi,
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>
> There is also a lot to be said for going with what is known to be stable for
> an LTS release.
Please do not begin with this discussion again. It is confusing for
the readers and totally unrelated. There is no LTS in the release
proces
Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Hannes Magnusson
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 22:52, Clint Byrum wrote:
Hi everyone. I'm trying to plan things for Ubuntu's upcoming 12.04 LTS
release. LTS stands for Long Term Support, and it will be supported by
Canonical for 5 years. B
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Hannes Magnusson
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 22:52, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Hi everyone. I'm trying to plan things for Ubuntu's upcoming 12.04 LTS
>> release. LTS stands for Long Term Support, and it will be supported by
>> Canonical for 5 years. Because of thi
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 22:52, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Hi everyone. I'm trying to plan things for Ubuntu's upcoming 12.04 LTS
> release. LTS stands for Long Term Support, and it will be supported by
> Canonical for 5 years. Because of this, I really want to ship a version
Wouldn't you rather want to
On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 13:52 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
> The release date is April 26 2012, can anyone tell me if 5.3.9 is
> expected
> by then?
Yes. 5.3.9 release cycle will start soon. Probably next week. So by
April it is certainly there. I assume even 5.3.10 will be released by
then.
> Ide
Hi everyone. I'm trying to plan things for Ubuntu's upcoming 12.04 LTS
release. LTS stands for Long Term Support, and it will be supported by
Canonical for 5 years. Because of this, I really want to ship a version
of PHP that has an is_a() behavior that will be consistent with any
future 5.3.x rele
20 matches
Mail list logo
