On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> People who are building critical systems are in a position to make a choice,
> and THEY will not be using windows. But PHP was origianlly 'Personal Home
> Page' and I am sure that as many people are using PHP because of the
> 'personal' elemen
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Rasmus wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 08:38 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> And much like Apache, I don't consider it our job to do binary builds
> for people. It is very nice that a few people have volunteered to build
> Windows binaries and they are available on windows.php.ne
Rasmus wrote:
On 06/06/2011 08:38 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Stas Malyshev wrote:
For many of us, the 5.2 branch HAS been the 'long term stability'
version of PHP
Any version beyond it's support period would be "long term stability"
(as in "pining for the fjords" stability) by definition. If som
On 07/06/11 01:49, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Currently off the shelf, 5.2.17 is the 'old stable' but for some
>> windows users
>> it IS the only available version. Changing the rest of the
>> infrastructure to
>
> 5.2.17 is unsupported. It is announced on php.net. Now, some Windows
> users, d
On 06/06/2011 08:38 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>> For many of us, the 5.2 branch HAS been the 'long term stability'
>>> version of PHP
>>
>> Any version beyond it's support period would be "long term stability"
>> (as in "pining for the fjords" stability) by definition. If some
Stas Malyshev wrote:
For many of us, the 5.2 branch HAS been the 'long term stability'
version of PHP
Any version beyond it's support period would be "long term stability"
(as in "pining for the fjords" stability) by definition. If somebody
want to backport patches and provide builds for it for
On 06/05/2011 03:27 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
This is a prime example of what we're talking about. Several have
expressed a desire to follow an Ubuntu style of branching instead
of the style proposed in said RFC. This is a core issue, so the
RFC is certainly not ready to adopt.
So does this re
Hi!
For many of us, the 5.2 branch HAS been the 'long term stability' version of PHP
Any version beyond it's support period would be "long term stability"
(as in "pining for the fjords" stability) by definition. If somebody
want to backport patches and provide builds for it for any period he
Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
The reason for the connection is simple ... currently PHP5.2 IS the
LTS version
for MANY users who are running windows based apache servers. Which is
the only
If that's what you mean by LTS, then discussing it is meaningless, as
nothing here depends on us - the users
Hi!
The reason for the connection is simple ... currently PHP5.2 IS the LTS version
for MANY users who are running windows based apache servers. Which is the only
If that's what you mean by LTS, then discussing it is meaningless, as
nothing here depends on us - the users will do it regardless
Stas Malyshev wrote:
As much as I appreciate everybody taking this opportunity to vent about
their troubles with Apache on Windows, could we not hijack this topic -
which was about release management and in particular LTS - and turn it
into Apache on Windows topic? We can have separate Apache on
Hi!
A PHP developers view on windows installation: it's screwed as hell right
now. I use apache + php for my developing envoirment on Windows 7. Guys - I
spend 1.5, freaking 1.5 hours setting up apache + php!!! essentially i just
As much as I appreciate everybody taking this opportunity to ven
Hello.
A PHP developers view on windows installation: it's screwed as hell right
now. I use apache + php for my developing envoirment on Windows 7. Guys - I
spend 1.5, freaking 1.5 hours setting up apache + php!!! essentially i just
had to download and try multiple binaries for windows to find the
On 06/06/2011 01:48 AM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
So RHEL6 will have whatever PHP that was around, then, which I
hope is PHP 5.3 (I don't have any RHEL6 servers yet). So RHEL6
will always be PHP5.3.x based.
RHEL 6.0's php-* packages are PHP 5.3.2. RHEL 6.1's uses PHP 5.3.3.
RHEL 5.6 h
Hi!
Media Temple's Grid servers still default to PHP 4.4.9. With the option of
using 5.2.16, but you have to explicitly tell it to use that version in your
.htaccess file.
This is pretty bad, but LTS would only make this problem worse - imagine
if 4.4 were LTS, they'd say "oh, we are install
Pierre Joye wrote:
However I ask you, strongly, now to stop to pollute this thread with
totally unrelated topics. Thanks for your understanding.
This is something of a rather important point since PHP has always been very
strongly related to Apache so it is totally related to a discussion of m
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> PERHAPS such important information could be made available to REAL USERS?
> There has never been any public statement to that effect!
For the 10th time, please stop to uppercase every 2nd word.
> Until you came on the scene I had never even
Media Temple's Grid servers still default to PHP 4.4.9. With the option of
using 5.2.16, but you have to explicitly tell it to use that version in your
.htaccess file.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM, John Crenshaw wrote:
>
> From: David Muir [mailto:davidkm...@gmail.com]
>
> On 06/06/11 17:48, T
Pierre Joye wrote:
> Please can you provide a link where THAT statement is made!
Chech the php windows internals list archive as well as the httpd
devel ones. This statement has been written numerous times in both
lists.
PERHAPS such important information could be made available to REAL USERS
From: David Muir [mailto:davidkm...@gmail.com]
On 06/06/11 17:48, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> Currently - A lot of ISP's are 'stuck' with PHP5.2 or earlier simply
> I don't know if this is really the case.
The problem is much larger than most of us would probably like to believe. Some
of the
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>>
>>> > http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
>>> > Win32 Binary IS one of the few binaries Apache supply!!! Some
>>> government
>>> > sites will ONLY allow that version to be installed:(
>>> > PHP5.2 installs hav
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Please can you provide a link where THAT statement is made!
Chech the php windows internals list archive as well as the httpd
devel ones. This statement has been written numerous times in both
lists.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developme
Pierre Joye wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
> Win32 Binary IS one of the few binaries Apache supply!!! Some government
> sites will ONLY allow that version to be installed:(
> PHP5.2 installs have then been approved for use with the official apache
> install, so are you sa
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
> Win32 Binary IS one of the few binaries Apache supply!!! Some government
> sites will ONLY allow that version to be installed :(
> PHP5.2 installs have then been approved for use with the official
Hi!
Currently off the shelf, 5.2.17 is the 'old stable' but for some windows users
it IS the only available version. Changing the rest of the infrastructure to
5.2.17 is unsupported. It is announced on php.net. Now, some Windows
users, due to certain choices, may have to run this version - bu
Pierre Joye wrote:
*WE* recommend using Apachelounge builds of apache, but some sites simply
> will not use that as it is not the recommended build from Apache. They
> religiously follow the rules printed on the official distributions and the
> download page is an official document as far as
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> We use apache and 5.3 smoothly and with the recent addition of rwlock
>> in apc on windows, it runs even better and faster.
>>
>> I'm sorry but unless you provide bugs report with clear reproduce
>> where we can actuall
Pierre Joye wrote:
We use apache and 5.3 smoothly and with the recent addition of rwlock
in apc on windows, it runs even better and faster.
I'm sorry but unless you provide bugs report with clear reproduce
where we can actually try to help you, there is no chance to get
anywhere with this kind o
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>>>
>>> If you can convince the IT departments of some of the archaic council
>>> sites
>>> > I am having to deal with that they do not have to stress test every
>>> > part of
>>> > a new system ... It's exactly the same ar
On 06/06/11 07:27, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> On 2011-06-05, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philip Olson
>>> wrote:
> I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions
> happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about
> rel
Pierre Joye wrote:
If you can convince the IT departments of some of the archaic council sites
> I am having to deal with that they do not have to stress test every part of
> a new system ... It's exactly the same argument FROM them as you are giving
> below as to why we should NOT provide sup
On 06/06/11 17:48, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> Currently - A lot of ISP's are 'stuck' with PHP5.2 or earlier simply
> I don't know if this is really the case. I work in this industry, and most
> of the small to mid hosting company's use cPanel or Plesk, and both include
> PHP 5.3. I've personall
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> If you can convince the IT departments of some of the archaic council sites
> I am having to deal with that they do not have to stress test every part of
> a new system ... It's exactly the same argument FROM them as you are giving
> below as
Pierre Joye wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>
>>> changes. While that almost certainly is due to the poor way that the
>>> some of the
>>> moves were documented, a version of 5.2 is still a preferred base for
>>> some? And
>>> this sho
Am 06.06.2011 13:41, schrieb Pierre Joye:
You cannot say that any kind of bugs prevent the waste majority to
update from a dead cow to the current stable branch. And I'm not sure
if it is actually a bug or a badly documented setting.
Its not the bug that prevents moving forward but the fix of i
You cannot say that any kind of bugs prevent the waste majority to
update from a dead cow to the current stable branch. And I'm not sure
if it is actually a bug or a badly documented setting.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Lars Schultz wrote:
> Am 06.06.2011 12:46, schrieb Pierre Joye:
>>
>> The
Am 06.06.2011 12:46, schrieb Pierre Joye:
There is no reason not to update, absolutely none.
There is: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=49189
Which "fixes" the issue by removing a feature and introducing a BC-Break.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>
>>> changes. While that almost certainly is due to the poor way that the
>>> some of the
>>> moves were documented, a version of 5.2 is still a preferred base for
>>> some? And
>>> this should perhaps be viewed as the c
Stas Malyshev wrote:
changes. While that almost certainly is due to the poor way that the
some of the
moves were documented, a version of 5.2 is still a preferred base for
some? And
this should perhaps be viewed as the current LTS branch? Certainly for
windows
But
a) it is not, since we don't
> Currently - A lot of ISP's are 'stuck' with PHP5.2 or earlier simply
I don't know if this is really the case. I work in this industry, and most
of the small to mid hosting company's use cPanel or Plesk, and both include PHP
5.3. I've personally seen very few issues moving from older PHP 5.
Hi!
changes. While that almost certainly is due to the poor way that the some of the
moves were documented, a version of 5.2 is still a preferred base for some? And
this should perhaps be viewed as the current LTS branch? Certainly for windows
But
a) it is not, since we don't support it. Someb
Stas Malyshev wrote:
Speaking of which, I personally don't understand how LTS thing would
work in PHP.
Currently - A lot of ISP's are 'stuck' with PHP5.2 or earlier simply because
pushing 5.3 caused problems/complaints from users due to the nature of the
changes. While that almost certainly i
Hi!
On 2011-06-05, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philip Olson wrote:
I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions
happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about
release process, let adopt it already!) and move on with 5.4.
This i
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 22:24, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> I'd like to set up a vote for the undecided TODO features on wiki.php.net,
> anybody could help me with setting up the voting module there if there's
> such thing on the wiki? Or set me up with the access to wiki machine and
> I'll install it :)
Sounds fine to me.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> We're having pretty lively discussion on the list, twitter and other places,
> but let's not forget the big goal of 5.4 :)
>
> 1. First of all, the official business. Any objections to the RMs for 5.4
> being:
> St
hi,
I have no objection as long as the RFC for the release process is
adopted before we do any 5.4 releases, as stated earlier, this is the
only way to put ourself on the safe side.
Cheers,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> We're having pretty lively discussion on
46 matches
Mail list logo
