RE: [PEAR-DEV] PHP 5
| From: | Stig S. Bakken | Date: | Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:06:13 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PEAR-DEV] PHP 5 | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-4598@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 12:13, Lukas Smith wrote:
> So where are we?
> Aside from issues of 2 branches or 2 repositories I think it has to
> decided if the PHP4 part of PEAR will get more attention than just
> bugfixes or not.
>
> I think that for atleast 1 year the PHP4 part should still be enhanced.
> So I am opposed to (feature) freezing PHP4 development with the release
> of PHP5.
At the end of the day, if a maintainer has converted completely to PHP
5, it's unreasonable to demand from him that he continues to support PHP
4 in a parallel release branch unless he wants to. Likewise, if someone
is sticking with PHP 4 for a year longer, it is unreasonable to demand
PHP 5 releases.
In practice, I think what will happen for most packages is that at some
point, the main development switches from PHP 4 to PHP 5. All the
releases for PHP 4 are archived, and the maintainers will probably push
out the occasional bugfix release.
This is probably how it has to work in a collection of open source
components.
The main problem is interoperability: what happens if you need features
from packages X and Y, but package Y didn't get them until some PHP
5-based release? This tells me that core (PFC) packages need to support
both PHP 4 and PHP 5 actively for quite a while, while non-core packages
are more free to take the leap when they see fit.
This was only part of the discussion I was trying to start though. I am
also interested to hear what people think about the other issues. I'll
outline what I have in mind in separate threads to get the rest going.
- Stig
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part signature.asc
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part signature.asc