Re: PHP_VERSION_SERIES_EOL_DATE or similar constants?
| From: | Johannes Schlüter | Date: | Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:31:38 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PHP_VERSION_SERIES_EOL_DATE or similar constants? | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-104799@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Mo, 2019-03-18 at 23:30 +0100, David Zuelke wrote:
>
> It would be really useful for e.g. code check systems, tools like
> Composer, hosting platforms, to inform the user of an upcoming or
> past
> EOM/EOL date, without having to maintain a list of these dates
> separately (by copying from, or scraping, php.net/eol.php).
Scraping isn't needed. We have http://php.net/releases/active.php which
gives current versions as JSON and it should be trivial to extend that
with EOL dates.
Hard-coding this in a release imo is not a good idea since we might
change our minds. Imagine we figure out that 9.3.0 contained a
completely broken implementation of a feature, which we can only fix in
a breaking 10.0.0 release. Then we might decide to break our policy and
kill of 9.3 quickly and do a 10.0 sooner.
Or we might see that 42.0.0 is a big break and people are stuck with
41.23.0 as all major applications have issue with the break. Then we
could decide to extend lifetime a bit, while 42.4.0 will bring a change
easing the transition.
Making predictions about the future is hard. Telling our intention to
our users, like on http://php.net/supported-versions.php is good
but we
should always have the liberty to change our minds.
Hard-coding a date in the distributed source takes away that liberty.
johannes
P.S. I am NOT saying we should break those expectations we set out and
the examples are completely artificial. (and I still believe we
shouldn't have so many parallel branches, but go for a LTS+early access
model instead, but that's a very independent discussion)