Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Minimum supported versions for PHP 8.6
| From: | Eric Norris | Date: | Thu, 02 Jul 2026 15:48:47 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Minimum supported versions for PHP 8.6 | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-131713@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 11:09 AM Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Am 2026-07-02 16:53, schrieb Eric Norris:
> > (Tim, I've not added you as an author since I wasn't sure you'd be
> > cool with that, but if you'd like I would be more than happy to.)
>
> I'm okay with that.
>
> ------
>
> And with regard to the RFC itself: Leaving the “Open Issues” and “Future
> Scope” sections empty looks weird. I suggest to either remove them
> completely or insert an explicit “None” or so. The same is true for the
> SAPI impact. The changelog could just be an "- 2026-07-02: Initial
> version" and then "- 2026-07-02: Clarify impact" (see below).
>
> The “References” section should ideally include links to the Pre-RFC
> discussion thread and must include a link to this discussion. For your
> convenience: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/131707 +
> https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130704).
>
> An “ecosystem impact” of “None” is also almost always wrong. I would
> mention the following (perhaps with a little nicer phrasing).
>
> - For COM_RESET_CONNECTION: The proper reset on persistent connections
> has the (positive) impact that the behavior of persistent connections
> will be more predictable. Of course if folks rely on some connection
> state carrying over across requests, they might see a breaking change.
> - Users that want to use the newest PHP version will be required to also
> run newer versions (released in the last 5 years) of other software.
>
> Best regards
> Tim Düsterhus
Thank you, I've both added you as an author and included your
suggested changes, with slight edits.