There does not seem to have been a decision made here - is there even a
process for making a decision like this?
We already have some extension code in production that requires PHP = 5.3 (
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/111691). I assume
that's not the case for core, but it
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Arthur Richards aricha...@wikimedia.org wrote:
There does not seem to have been a decision made here - is there even a
process for making a decision like this?
We kind of just bikeshed it around on the list for a few weeks then
somebody finally bumps it in
Le 21/02/12 16:08, Domas Mituzas wrote:
If MediaWiki is better on newer PHP, we should use newer PHP.
I have read that:
If MediaWiki is better on JS, we should use JS.
Go figure.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Me too.
- Trevor
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 21/02/12 16:08, Domas Mituzas wrote:
If MediaWiki is better on newer PHP, we should use newer PHP.
I have read that:
If MediaWiki is better on JS, we should use JS.
Go figure.
The correct answer is I'm sorry this is inconvenient, ask your hosting
provider or find a better one.
I completely agree.
Being able to use features like namespaces and late static binding would be
a huge win. I'm definitely in favor of bumping the minimum PHP version to
5.3.x.
--
Arthur
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Arthur Richards
aricha...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The correct answer is I'm sorry this is inconvenient, ask your hosting
provider or find a better one.
I completely agree.
Being able to use features like namespaces and late static binding would be
a huge win.
The key features of PHP 5.3.0 include:
Support for namespaces
Late static binding
Lambda Functions and Closures
Syntax additions:
NOWDOC,
ternary short cut ?:
and jump label (limited goto), __callStatic()
Under the hood performance improvements
Optional garbage collection for cyclic references
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Reilly prei...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Syntax additions:
NOWDOC,
This is actually very useful.
ternary short cut ?:
I don't think this syntax is all that intuitive. People are
lazy though, so I guess it'll get used.
and jump label (limited goto),
On 23/02/12 22:23, Chad wrote:
Under the hood performance improvements
Optional garbage collection for cyclic references
This is my favorite part of 5.3 3
-Chad
You don't need 5.2 incompatible code for that.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Please note that CentOS is still running PHP 5.2.x out of the box. The same
goes for the cheap controlpanel DirectAdmin.
With a test in cPanel users almost 90% is running CentOS 5.x with PHP 5.2.x
With changing
Haha!
Its a fact that cPanel will make the upgrade easy to php 5.3 or CentOS 6.*
But I guess it will bring up a lot of questions when it would be bumped up
right now, it seems that PHP 5.2.x is still widly in use..
Best,
Huib
Just checked, but parrelels plesk gives me a PHP 5.3 version, so
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
Haha!
Its a fact that cPanel will make the upgrade easy to php 5.3 or CentOS 6.*
If memory serves, nothing cPanel does is easy (read: pain free). But we're
quickly digressing.
-Chad
On 21 February 2012 12:11, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
Please note that CentOS is still running PHP 5.2.x out of the box. The same
goes for the cheap controlpanel DirectAdmin.
With a test in cPanel users almost
Le 21/02/12 13:28, David Gerard a écrit :
Presumably we have contacts at hosting companies and cPanel? It would
be in order to warn them.
We can not contact / track PHP version of major hosting companies. Their
customers will eventually ask them for an upgrade.
--
Antoine hashar Musso
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 21/02/12 13:28, David Gerard a écrit :
Presumably we have contacts at hosting companies and cPanel? It would
be in order to warn them.
We can not contact / track PHP version of major hosting companies. Their
Hi!
Agreed. Trying to push people to upgrade to 5.3 will be a colossal waste
of time. Remember the pushes for PHP5 and to get people to drop PHP4?
None of that frustration was around MediaWiki development - we dropped PHP4
swiftly, and I guess only Jeffrey Merkey complained. ;-)
If MediaWiki
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
Agreed. Trying to push people to upgrade to 5.3 will be a colossal waste
of time. Remember the pushes for PHP5 and to get people to drop PHP4?
None of that frustration was around MediaWiki development - we
Sooo.
Here we are again, looking at PHP version bumps. Our current minimum version
is 5.2.3, released in June 2009 (5.2.0 was November 2006).
I'm proposing to at least bump to version 5.3.0 (as the minimal), release
back in June 2006. Though a higher point release would be acceptable if
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Sam Reed re...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm proposing to at least bump to version 5.3.0 (as the minimal), release
back in June 2006. Though a higher point release would be acceptable if
anyone knows of any blocking bugs that were fixed later in the release
series.
Le 20/02/12 22:01, Sam Reed a écrit :
Here we are again, looking at PHP version bumps. Our current minimum version
is 5.2.3, released in June 2009 (5.2.0 was November 2006).
I'm proposing to at least bump to version 5.3.0 (as the minimal), release
back in June 2006. Though a higher point
Hello,
Please note that CentOS is still running PHP 5.2.x out of the box. The same
goes for the cheap controlpanel DirectAdmin.
With a test in cPanel users almost 90% is running CentOS 5.x with PHP 5.2.x
With changing the minimum version we would stop a lot of users from using
mediawik...
21 matches
Mail list logo
