On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 12:04 +0100, Jakub Zelenka wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Johannes Schlüter > <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 10:51 +0100, Jakub Zelenka wrote: > > Is it ok to update the extension without migration path in > this case? > > > What I'm thinking about is calling the new one fann2 and > deprecate fann. > This helps the lost souls using the old one and is a clean > cut. > > johannes > > > Sounds good to me. I think that would be a good idea if I was a > maintainer of both extensions (fann as well as fann2). I would update > the old package info explaining that fann is deprecated and works only > with PHP4 (btw. was the zif to zim change done in PHP 5.0?) and > libfann 1. I could also resolve bugs in fann instructing users to > update to fann2. Would this be ok? > I was a bit confused as zif/zim is wrapped by macros and affects only OO stuff ... and PHP 4 and OO sounds unlikely. The issue is the missing function_entry/zend_function_entry change in https://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=297236 This breaks with PHP 5.4. (and yay - zif/zim and function_entry removal are both things I'm responsible for)
Anyways about bugs, yes, old fann bugs should get an update along the lines of "fann(1) isn't supported anymore, please look at fann2" johannes Anyways > Jakub > -- PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
