On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Patrick ALLAERT > <patrickalla...@php.net>wrote: > >> 2011/12/27 Ilia Alshanetsky <i...@ilia.ws>: >> > The change is inside 5.4 version which adjust breaks BC. >> >> I don't follow you here Ilia. >> >> As per https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess: >> * "Backward compatibility must be respected with the same major >> releases, for example from 5.2 to 5.6." >> * Going from x.y.z to x.y+1.z, it is ok to break *binary* >> compatibility but "Backward compatibility must be kept". >> >> However: >> >> new DateTime("@{$_SERVER['REQUEST_TIME']}"); >> >> works in 5.3 but not in 5.4. >> AFAIK, creating a DateTime object based on the REQUEST_TIME is not an >> exotic thing. >> For sure, the fix is easy, but that is not the point, it *will* >> actually break applications. >> >> Did I miss something? > > > I think that he is referring to that we already break BC with 5.4 > (removing magic_quotes, register_globals, break/continue > $var, allow_call_time_pass_reference, some deprecated session_ functions, > safe_mode, etc. for a complete list see > http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_4/UPGRADING?view=markup > ) > These are mostly removal of features, and most of these have been deprecated for quite a while. The REQUEST_TIME change however is a change of behaviour that has not been warned about up front, which imo is a worse BC break then most of the rest. And arguing for ignoring one bc break/bug/mistake because there are others is.. well.. :) > > However I tend to agree with you, that this BC break isn't really worth > it, we can see that there are common apps stumbling across this change, and > albeit the new behavior can be useful for many people, they wouldn't really > mind if we add this as a new variable imo. > Great, so I do think most people agree that this can, and should be fixed before 5.4 by instead expose microtime on a separate variable called REQUEST_TIME_FLOAT. +1
