On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > > IMHO, I think we need to look at the 5.6 lifecycle very differently from > > how we look at 5.5 and earlier. This is really the 5.x lifecycle as it's > > the last version that's relatively completely painless to upgrade to from > > 5.x (especially 5.3 and later). > > We could make 5.6 an LTS release with extended support, but the question > is given the code delta, would all fixes' authors be willing to do > essentially double work? Would extension authors be willing to maintain > two branches long-term? And, if that proves to be hard - wouldn't we end > up with a situation where they choose to only maintain PHP 5 version > (since it's easier and that's where 90% of people are) and extensions go > unsupported for PHP 7 for a long time, creating an adoption problem for 7? > > I do think we probably need to extend the lifetime of 5.6 (and make an > RFC on it) since I see no way to have everybody to adopt PHP 7 in mere 8 > months, but we should have a defined EOL date ASAP. > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > From my perspective, people already have until the end of 2017 to switch to PHP 7. I think Long Term Support (TM) is generally an anti-pattern that promotes negligence and makes it harder to ensure people are running the latest security updates. Giving everyone until the end of 2017 to update their servers is more than sufficient. Scott Arciszewski Chief Development Officer Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com/>
