Re: MDB2 2.5.x and PHP 5.2?

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Alexey Borzov <borz_off@cs.msu.su> wrote: > Hi Till, > > On 09.09.2010 21:41, till wrote: >>> >>> Notwithstanding the ongoing move to 5.3, I imagine that there are others >>> like me who will have to use 5.2 for a while yet, and it would be a real >>> shame if we can't use any future versions of MDB2 - or have to force PEAR >>> installs. >> >> +1 - Regardless, I also think this requires a new major version. >> >>> (Somewhat related - another major change in this version that may affect >>> upgraders is a BC break for PHP4 compatibility and some derived classes - >>> http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=17858 ) >> >> I think such a bold move would require MDB2 3.0.0 - can anyone please >> comment? >> >> I know we all hate PHP4 and we all want people to move on PHP5.3 >> tomorrow, but let's keep it real and think for a sec. ;-) > > It was somewhat discussed before when dealing with Log 1.12: > http://pear.php.net/package/Log/download/1.12.0 > > The discussion: > http://marc.info/?t=124938784000005&r=1&w=2 > > The general consensus is: raising PHP version dependency is not a BC break. Why not? It's "stable" and this change breaks existing code for others. I can see that CodeSniffer and Documentor follow a slightly different set of rules, but with libraries, this is a no go. Especially if it's as "easy" as doing a new package - what's the hold off? If MDB2 was alpha grade code I wouldn't object to BC breaks at all. But it's one of the most used PEAR packages. > Declaring factory() static may be a BC break, but we already "allowed" that > to slip through for Log. > Weird. I always thought PEAR took BC breakage more serious. Till