On Aug 7, 2006, at 00:44, grangeway blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>> I'd like to change the dependencies for the
next major release
>> (1.1) to the following minimums: php from 4.0.6 to
4.3.0 and mySQL
>> from 3.23.58 to 4.1.0. These changes will simplify
some pieces of
>> code and allow us to remove some workarounds in
place. From a
>> distribution point of view, this would eliminate:
>> RHEL 3 (RHEL 4 works and was released in
2005/02),
>> Fedora Core 3 (FC4 works and was released in
2005/06),
>> SUSE 9.2 (SUSE 9.3 should work and was released
in 2005/04),
>> Ubuntu 5.04 (5.10 should work and was released
in 2005/10).
>
> a) php -> 4.3.0
>
> I'd be inclined to do that - 4.3.0 was released on
27-Dec-2002. I
> know i
> tend to do coding intermittendly, but when I do, i'm
likely to test on
> php5, latest php4 release (4.3 or 4.4) and both mysql +
mssql.
>
> Ultimately whilst we probably dont need to remove
support of the older
> versions of php as for the most part we've got some
compatibility
> function
> - I doubt we're doing any testing on 4.0.6, and given
the age that
> those
> versions must be, that seems reasonable.
I agree with PHP 4.3.0 as a minimum.
> b) mysql
>
> Given that we've now got support for postgres/mssql
are there actually
> specific issues here? -> I'd have thought that by
the time one
> deals with
> mssql/postgres/mysql support, that new features in
mysql 4.1 would
> probably be limited by mssql/postgres anyway.
I'm not sure of Glenn's reasoning, but MySQL 4.1 is the
first version
that supports UTF-8 data properly so it's advantageous from
that
standpoint, since Mantis could benefit greatly from using
UTF-8. In
fact, MySQL 4.1.0 was weird and significantly different from
MySQL
4.1.1 and later such that I would recommend that the new
minimum be
4.1.1 (December 2003). Or, you could make it 4.1.7 (October
2004)
which was the first production-quality release of 4.1.x.
>> I'd also like to turn the javascript on
permanently. This would
>> eliminate several pages (e.g., filters) that have
gotten out of sync
>> with the javascript based pages.
>
> c) Javascript
>
> No objections on this from me, as I'd have thought
that the
> majority of
> people now, especially with 'ajax services etc coming
along' would
> have
> javascript enabled - but do we still need to support
both for obscure
> browsers etc ?
I have JavaScript on all the time and enjoy the
interactivity it can
bring and have no problem requiring it. I've done some
other Internet
projects that require it and nobody complained yet, though
I'm not
sure if the audience is representative. I still hear claims
that some
corporate IT departments will require JavaScript off on
client
workstations due to security concerns in Internet Explorer
for
Windows. I have no information on how valid such concerns
still are
today as I'm not a Windows person.
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the
chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys
-- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.
php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Mantisbt-dev mailing list
Mantisbt-devlists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mantisbt-d
ev
|