Den 2015-12-08 kl. 16:00, skrev Adam Howard:
The EOL (end of life) date does influence people. True, not everyone will
simply jump ship upon EOL. But it is still has a significant enough
influence on adoption and urgency in general. Especially toward new
development projects or new releases in
The EOL (end of life) date does influence people. True, not everyone will
simply jump ship upon EOL. But it is still has a significant enough
influence on adoption and urgency in general. Especially toward new
development projects or new releases in general that are less likely to
code with supp
On Sun, 2015-12-06 at 15:17 -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Sufficient for what? It is a hard fact that people still run 5.3
> version. In fact, 2/3 of sites run EOLed versions. You can always say
> they have only themselves to blame, but then I'm not sure what
> "sufficient" means. Unless adopt
Den 2015-12-06 kl. 18:05, skrev Sebastian Bergmann:
Am 06.12.2015 um 17:57 schrieb Björn Larsson:
Would like to add that given 7.0 major uptake with ISP's coming next
year (at least in my region) it seems prudent to prolong 5.6 lifecycle a
little.
I fear that extending support for PHP 5 will
2016, not 2017. Extended support for nearly 2 years is a bad idea and only
further enables bad practices.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Adam Howard wrote:
> I see the same people who had a problem with the EOL (end of life) date
> for 5.4, 5.5, are going to be the same people who have a probl
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 12:17:55PM +0200, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> Hello internals,
>
> In my opinion, right now what dictates the timeframes is Release Process
> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess
> It clearly states the rules of how things are done.
> If dates for the PHP 5.6 are to be
I see the same people who had a problem with the EOL (end of life) date for
5.4, 5.5, are going to be the same people who have a problem with 5.6 EOL.
Extended the support will only enable those and others to validate their
excuse for not needing to migrate to the new code base.
I agree, a date sh
Hi Stas,
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
IMHO, I think we need to look at the 5.6 lifecycle very differently from
how we look at 5.5 and earlier. This is really the 5.x lifecycle as it's
the last version that's relatively completely painless to upgrade to from
5.x (especially 5.3 and later).
Adding extended support does justify (provide an excuse) for others not
adapt or upgrade to new code. While PHP Development obvious cannot control
the actions of others (obviously), extending support does unintentionally
enables poor practices. Once support is ended, people do begin to migrate.
On 07/12/15 12:09, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote on 07/12/2015 11:47:
>> Things are certainly heading in the right direction, but 5.2/3 is still
>> only dropped bellow 50% in the last month, while PHP4 was well down when
>> the actual EOL was proposed. 80% of people were using PHP5.2 in
>
>
> Ferenc - do you still feel strongly that we should defer the decision into
> a later time? I want to know whether to include that as an option in the
> RFC. Personally - while there are pros and cons to both directions, I'm
> leaning more towards having a clearly defined timeline that we de
Lester Caine wrote on 07/12/2015 11:47:
Things are certainly heading in the right direction, but 5.2/3 is still
only dropped bellow 50% in the last month, while PHP4 was well down when
the actual EOL was proposed. 80% of people were using PHP5.2 in 2010
against 20% on PHP4, and that swung to 90/1
On 07/12/15 11:18, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote on 07/12/2015 09:42:
>> Providing PHP7 clean alternatives with usable upgrade paths is the
>> only way that PHP5.2/3 can be deprecated fully, so any debate on an
>> arbitrary EOL for 5.6 is simple pie in the sky? When will Python2
>> disa
Lester Caine wrote on 07/12/2015 09:42:
Providing PHP7 clean alternatives with usable upgrade paths is the
only way that PHP5.2/3 can be deprecated fully, so any debate on an
arbitrary EOL for 5.6 is simple pie in the sky? When will Python2
disappear ... now unlikely it ever will? Is PHP5.2 any
> -Original Message-
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 12:41 PM
> To: David Zuelke
> Cc: Anatol Belski; Larry Garfield; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
>
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Davi
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, David Zuelke wrote:
> On 06.12.2015, at 20:38, Anatol Belski wrote:
>
> > From today's perspective, I'd suggest to extend the security only period of
> > 5.6.
>
> That would be my suggestion too.
>
> End "full" support in, say, December 2016 (a year after 7.0.0), but
> th
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:56 AM, David Zuelke wrote:
>
>> On 06.12.2015, at 20:38, Anatol Belski wrote:
>>
>> > From today's perspective, I'd suggest to extend the security only
>> period of 5.6.
>>
>> That would be my suggestion too.
>
Hello internals,
In my opinion, right now what dictates the timeframes is Release Process
RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess
It clearly states the rules of how things are done.
If dates for the PHP 5.6 are to be adjusted, than it requires an RFC
process and should be an exception, not th
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:56 AM, David Zuelke wrote:
> On 06.12.2015, at 20:38, Anatol Belski wrote:
>
> > From today's perspective, I'd suggest to extend the security only period
> of 5.6.
>
> That would be my suggestion too.
>
> End "full" support in, say, December 2016 (a year after 7.0.0), bu
On 07/12/15 00:02, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>>> Giving everyone until the end of 2017 to update their servers is more
>>> >> than sufficient.
>> >
>> >Sufficient for what? It is a hard fact that people still run 5.3
>> >version. In fact, 2/3 of sites run EOLed versions.
> I know why *we* are still runn
On 12/06/2015 06:02 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev in php.internals (Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:17:53 -0800):
Hi!
Giving everyone until the end of 2017 to update their servers is more
than sufficient.
Sufficient for what? It is a hard fact that people still run 5.3
version. In fact, 2/3 o
On 12/06/2015 03:43 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
IMHO, I think we need to look at the 5.6 lifecycle very differently from
how we look at 5.5 and earlier. This is really the 5.x lifecycle as it's
the last version that's relatively completely painless to upgrade to from
5.x (especially 5.3
hi,
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 7:03 PM
>> To: Ferenc Kovacs
>> Cc: Jan Ehrhardt; PHP Internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-
On Dec 6, 2015 11:32 PM, "Ferenc Kovacs" wrote:
>
> 2015. dec. 6. 13:15 ezt írta ("Jan Ehrhardt" ):
> >
> > See http://php.net/supported-versions.php
> >
> > Will PHP 5.6 go into 'security fixes only' on 28 Aug 2015 with a end of
> > life on 28 Aug 2016? Or will we be postponing this a couple of m
Hi!
> If 2/3 of sites still run EOLed versions of PHP, all adding a long-term
> support version is going to do is encourage habits of inertia. "Well,
You seem to be under impression that we have some control over these
habits. We do not. There are a lot of factors that influence these
decisions,
On 06.12.2015, at 20:38, Anatol Belski wrote:
> From today's perspective, I'd suggest to extend the security only period of
> 5.6.
That would be my suggestion too.
End "full" support in, say, December 2016 (a year after 7.0.0), but then give
it two years of security fixes instead of just one.
Scott Arciszewsk, I read the 8 month suggestion that someone else brought
up. I do not recall who brought it up, but I think 2017 is far too much
time. It only further enables bad practices.
Jan Ehrhardt, That is not PHP's responsibility, that is your responsibility
to update your own code. N
I agree with Scott. With each extension we only seem to be enabling people
with bad habits. 8 months is almost a full year and more than enough time.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Scott Arciszewski
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > > Givi
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Adam Howard in php.internals (Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:07:53 -0500):
> >8 months is fine. It is more than enough time for people to upgrade and
> >adapt.
>
> It ain't. If you have got large sites that are built with a framework that
> requires an o
Adam Howard in php.internals (Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:07:53 -0500):
>8 months is fine. It is more than enough time for people to upgrade and
>adapt.
It ain't. If you have got large sites that are built with a framework that
requires an older PHP-version you will have to (a) convince the site owner
tha
Stanislav Malyshev in php.internals (Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:17:53 -0800):
>Hi!
>
>> Giving everyone until the end of 2017 to update their servers is more
>> than sufficient.
>
>Sufficient for what? It is a hard fact that people still run 5.3
>version. In fact, 2/3 of sites run EOLed versions.
I know w
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Giving everyone until the end of 2017 to update their servers is more
> > than sufficient.
>
> Sufficient for what? It is a hard fact that people still run 5.3
> version. In fact, 2/3 of sites run EOLed versions. You can always
Hi!
> Giving everyone until the end of 2017 to update their servers is more
> than sufficient.
Sufficient for what? It is a hard fact that people still run 5.3
version. In fact, 2/3 of sites run EOLed versions. You can always say
they have only themselves to blame, but then I'm not sure what
"suf
8 months is fine. It is more than enough time for people to upgrade and
adapt. Extending support longer only extends the excuse for other
developments not to upgrade and adapt, as history has proven time and time
again.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 5:38 PM, François Laupretre wrote:
> Le 06/12/2015
Le 06/12/2015 20:38, Anatol Belski a écrit :
Virtually, most of the core devs are concentrated on improving and bringing forward 7.
That means what is called "active development" doesn't really match the
reality, per fact.
That's 'active support', not 'active development'. It means that we
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > IMHO, I think we need to look at the 5.6 lifecycle very differently from
> > how we look at 5.5 and earlier. This is really the 5.x lifecycle as it's
> > the last version that's relatively completely painless to upgrade to fro
Hi!
> IMHO, I think we need to look at the 5.6 lifecycle very differently from
> how we look at 5.5 and earlier. This is really the 5.x lifecycle as it's
> the last version that's relatively completely painless to upgrade to from
> 5.x (especially 5.3 and later).
We could make 5.6 an LTS release
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Garfield [mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 8:01 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
>
> On 12/06/2015 11:36 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >> -O
On 12/06/2015 11:36 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 7:03 PM
To: Ferenc Kovacs
Cc: Jan Ehrhardt; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Ferenc
Le 06/12/2015 18:36, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
The 'sin' of the PHP 4 EOL was - well -
that we didn't have one for a very long time.
An important 'sin' of the PHP 4 EOL is also the massive backport of PHP
5 features during years, which didn't push people to migrate.
In general, I don't think t
I think 5.6 should not be extended. It should be treated like any other
release and given the same length of time originally planned for any
previous release. It should not be the responsibility of PHP Development
to be used as an excuse not to update adapt to newer code standards. Which
is som
> On 6 בדצמ׳ 2015, at 19:50, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
> re-reading the archives I tend to agree, even myself mentioned in the 5.7
> thread that we could extend the 5.6 lifecycle if the sole reason for 5.7
> was to extend the support timeframe for 5.x
> so I think that extending the 5.6 lifecycle i
Am 06.12.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Remi Collet:
> so active support until Dec 2016
> and security support until Dec 2017.
Dec 2016 / Dec 2017 makes sense to me.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 06/12/2015 13:38, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> IMHO, I think we need to look at the 5.6 lifecycle very differently
> from how we look at 5.5 and earlier. This is really the 5.x
> lifecycle as it's the last version that's relatively completely
> painle
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>> 2015. dec. 6. 13:15 ezt írta ("Jan Ehrhardt" ):
>> >
>> > See http://php.net/supported-versions.php
>> >
>> > Will PHP 5.6 go into 'security fixes only' on 28 Aug 2015 with a end of
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 7:03 PM
> To: Ferenc Kovacs
> Cc: Jan Ehrhardt; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Ferenc Kovacs w
Am 06.12.2015 um 17:57 schrieb Björn Larsson:
> Would like to add that given 7.0 major uptake with ISP's coming next
> year (at least in my region) it seems prudent to prolong 5.6 lifecycle a
> little.
I fear that extending support for PHP 5 will slow down adoption of
PHP 7.
--
PHP Internals -
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> 2015. dec. 6. 13:15 ezt írta ("Jan Ehrhardt" ):
> >
> > See http://php.net/supported-versions.php
> >
> > Will PHP 5.6 go into 'security fixes only' on 28 Aug 2015 with a end of
> > life on 28 Aug 2016? Or will we be postponing this a couple
Den 2015-12-06 kl. 17:39, skrev François Laupretre:
Le 06/12/2015 13:38, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: Jan Ehrhardt [mailto:php...@ehrhardt.nl]
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 2:15 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
See http://php.net/
Ferenc Kovacs in php.internals (Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:32:25 +0100):
>Since the rfc for 5.7 failed the voting I've personally assumed that we
>don't want to support the 5.x series after the normal lifecycle for 5.6:
>https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
That RFC was based on a proposed timeline for PHP7 wit
Le 06/12/2015 13:38, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: Jan Ehrhardt [mailto:php...@ehrhardt.nl]
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 2:15 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
See http://php.net/supported-versions.php
Will PHP 5.6 go into 'securit
2015. dec. 6. 13:15 ezt írta ("Jan Ehrhardt" ):
>
> See http://php.net/supported-versions.php
>
> Will PHP 5.6 go into 'security fixes only' on 28 Aug 2015 with a end of
> life on 28 Aug 2016? Or will we be postponing this a couple of months?
>
> BTW: An end-of-life in Dec 2016 will be in line wih
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 06.12.2015 um 13:14 schrieb Jan Ehrhardt:
>> See http://php.net/supported-versions.php
>>
>> Will PHP 5.6 go into 'security fixes only' on 28 Aug 2015 with a end of
>> life on 28 Aug 2016?
>
> I hope that we stick to the current plan
Am 06.12.2015 um 15:45 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
> I hope that we stick to the current plan of ending support for PHP 5
"support" should have been "active support". Sorry for the noise.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Am 06.12.2015 um 13:14 schrieb Jan Ehrhardt:
> See http://php.net/supported-versions.php
>
> Will PHP 5.6 go into 'security fixes only' on 28 Aug 2015 with a end of
> life on 28 Aug 2016?
I hope that we stick to the current plan of ending support for PHP 5
on 28 Aug 2016. If we don't, then plea
Zeev Suraski in php.internals (Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:24:02 +0200):
> From: Jan Ehrhardt [mailto:php...@ehrhardt.nl]
>> But there must be thousands of extensions out there, that we have no
>> knowledge of. For people that have already done a port to PHP7 the next
>> one is relatively simple. But portin
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Ehrhardt [mailto:php...@ehrhardt.nl]
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 3:21 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
>
> Zeev Suraski in php.internals (Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:38:10 +0200):
> >IMHO,
Zeev Suraski in php.internals (Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:38:10 +0200):
>IMHO, I think we need to look at the 5.6 lifecycle very differently from
>how we look at 5.5 and earlier. This is really the 5.x lifecycle as it's
>the last version that's relatively completely painless to upgrade to from
>5.x (espec
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Ehrhardt [mailto:php...@ehrhardt.nl]
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 2:15 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
>
> See http://php.net/supported-versions.php
>
> Will PHP 5.6 go into 'security fixes only' on 28 Aug 2015 w
Well, August 2015 has already passed.
I guess 5.6 will be extended till Dec 2016 and security support till Dec
2017.
But that's for the community to decide.
Kaplan
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> See http://php.net/supported-versions.php
>
> Will PHP 5.6 go into 'security
60 matches
Mail list logo
