Johannes, Rasmus,
On Wed, January 29, 2014 17:34, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 17:16 +0100, Anatol Belski wrote:
>
>
>> 70% done in two hours on such a monster? The last say 5-10% might take
>> some longer. Say for that caliber - 3 workdays (port, fix beyond, test)
>> to be done is realistic. The start into porting Zend, main and other
>> very core was very long and painful, but doing the same with extensions
>> now is an exponential speedup.
>
> ... and it is done by the person with the most experience in that
> migration. Others will need more time for looking things up in
> documentation.
>
>> Where comes the number 1000+ from? Last year what I could see on PECL -
>> about 300 extensions, about 40% really active. Clear, a number is also
>> not in PECL, like GPL'd and so, but 1000? Massive effort is rather a big
>> exception. And it's not like one would keep off and amuse himself
>> while the exts are dying.
>
> There is a *huge* number of extensions inside companies. Even though
> these are "hidden" we still force them to upgrade.
>
>> Reading such stats http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/pl-php/5/all
>> I
>> wonder what is with the 5.5 adoption? If that data don't lie, despite
>> the amount of work done on 5.5, including PECL, it's not that wide
>> spread as one would wish. At least, it's being adapted slowly. Do we
>> expect 5.6 adoption to be any faster?
>
> The issue with all these statistics is that they can only count what is
> *used* not what is being *worked* on. So much is "legacy" which is kept
> alive with as little effort as possible. An important factor are current
> distribution packages. Accurate statistics are impossible to get so
> everybody can do his subjective "correction" ;-)
>
me being the person with most knowledge about it right now is the argument
I have to buy. That is/was also one of the few reasons I was asking for
participation of others in the meantime, so that knowledge could be shared
across our limited resources. The others was to get it done faster and
with more quality. A big part from that "small" porting example is the
replace script and the compat header. The type replacements have to be
done manually yet, i think a magic is possible to partly cover that
automatically. Beyond will however persists, though it's almost covered by
compiler warnings, following them requires just attention.
That is why I said "if that data doesn't lie", it's clear that no reliable
stats do exist. Also I haven't seen it under the angle of companies, well,
to some level. But that Yahoo depends so much on PHP, wow :) Rasmus, as
you have contact there, you might of course know better, which PHP version
they use internally, is that usage consistent across the whole company,
whether they're intended to upgrade and to which version, that's more like
insider info. The hosting offered is still 5.3
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting/compare-plans
... Whereby there
are already hosters offering PHP-5.5, while other still stick to 5.4.
Google app engine is 5.4 today AFAIR. But generally about the companies
way smaller then Yahoo I knew personally, there were no much enthusiasm to
upgrade in any case. Far less with the client projects as the cliens
usually do not willingly pay for upgrade if a soft still works. Talking
about projects with extensions even less, as more effort involved. In
house software might be something else, but not necessarily. From the
experience, even middle market businesses economize nowadays, like running
out-of-date desktops, etc.
What of those dependencies are the real issue for PHP and to which level,
and where the line can be crossed? Were the technical benefit be justified
despite some possible negative impact? Going deeper in such matters looks
to me more like a kind of market analyze where I'm not a specialist. My
position is more egoistical - what is more of use for PHP and community?
Say whether one or another does upgrade or not, the progress is done. What
if we delay and the upgrade rate is small? Then we've lost the valuable
time, that is. With taking the RFC into 5.6 we were at least 1 year ahead
with much better quality.
Regards
Anatol