On 4/20/07, Ken Snider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, that's arguable, and there are precedents when these goals were
> put aside for sanity of applying security updates -- see Firefox and
> Seamonkey.
I'll humbly submit there is a stark difference between upgrading php to a
version that may break all existing code, versus upgrading a browser that
may hiccup a few plugins, but otherwise isn't likely to break your www
viewing experience.
Come on, this is PHP we're talking about. Code breakage going from
php-5.1.6 to php-5.2 is not any more likely to occur than going from
php-5.1.5 to php-5.1.6, if the history of the project has anything to
tell us on that matter. In fact, the upstream specifically says: "Most
improvements in PHP 5.2.x have no impact on existing code."
(http://ca3.php.net/UPDATE_5_2.txt)
In fact, the upstream is considering 5.2 as the continuation of 5.1,
and the decision to increment the version was due to additional
functionality.
*especially* given that it's unlikely upgrading to 5.2 would be *required*
for security anyway.
That's not true. There will be no future releases in the php-5.1 line,
so all fixes will have to be backported from 5.2. As the projects
diverge more and more, that will become increasingly difficult.
I'm not saying that RH should upgrade to 5.2 -- it's their decision
whether they want to keep the 5.1 line and apply backpatches to it.
However, I'm just wondering out loud whether it would make more sense
to go up to 5.2, since RHEL5 *just* came out and there are going to be
a lot fewer sites relying on php-5.1 than there will be a year from
now.
It's one of those decisions where potential benefits might outweigh
drawbacks of doing the upgrade.
Regards,
--
Konstantin Ryabitsev
Montréal, Québec
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
