6 ms·
Laravel 5.1 with LTS is released
- ericbarnes 11y agoBeing the first release offering LTS is fantastic news for the community.
- fweespeech 11y agoAs interesting as LTS support is, 2 years is frankly very short. I'm used to thinking of LTS support in terms of 4-5 years. I suspect everyone else is too and Laravel is going to piss off everyone who doesn't read the fine print.
- sarciszewski 11y agoIt's actually 2 years of updates + 3 years of security updates.
- fweespeech 11y agoA web framework that no longer is accepting bug fixes isn't really supported. So yes, its only supported for 2 years.
- sarciszewski 11y agohttps://php.net/supported-versions.php https://php.net/supported-versions.php PHP versions offer 2 years of support + 1 year of security fixes. So it doesn't really make sense for a PHP project to offer longer support.
- fweespeech 11y ago1) They aren't lining it up with PHP version support which means if that was their justification, they didn't think it through at all. 2) That doesn't make it long term support. 3) > Since originally launching in 2011, Laravel has always followed the “release early, release often” mantra which is popular in open source applications. With the historic rise in popularity of the framework, it was time to start focusing on the needs of large organizations and mission-critical applications that need security fixes but can’t upgrade quickly. Laravel 5.1 will now include 3 years of security fixes. The logical way to have handled this if that was the reasoning would have been to say "Laravel 5.1 will be supported until Aug 2017 to line up with the PHP release cycle and provide a stable platform for large organizations along multiple levels of their tech stack. As each version of PHP is released, we will release a LTS support version of Laravel in sync with PHP's cycle within X months." That isn't what they did and that is not what they communicated in any, way, shape or form. It doesn't line up with PHP's release cycle, it doesn't have the coverage needed to be truly LTS. It isn't like PHP has breaking changes in every point release.
- romanovcode 11y ago2 years for bug fixes, 3 years for security fixes
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- noir_lord 11y ago> I suspect everyone else is too and Laravel is going to piss off everyone who doesn't read the fine print. If I'm on a project where LTS matters I'd not be doing my job if I didn't read the small print.
- fweespeech 11y agoI'd say that to the people that complain about MongoDB's default configuration in the early days but many people feel perfectly justified in that position.
- Olap84 11y agoHow many other Frameworks offer LTS releases? Plenty are mature enough to offer this, but commercial backing must be hard to come by.
- gondo 11y agostaying in PHP world, Symfony2 does http://symfony.com/doc/current/contributing/community/releases.html#long-term-support-versions http://symfony.com/doc/current/contributing/community/releas...
- speg 11y agoLeaving the PHP world, Django does: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.8/internals/release-process/#long-term-support-lts-releases https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.8/internals/release-proc...
- mtbcoder 11y agoRegarding Python, Django does LTS releases.
- sarciszewski 11y agohttp://laravel.com/docs/5.1/releases#laravel-5.1 http://laravel.com/docs/5.1/releases#laravel-5.1 In previous versions of Laravel, encryption was handled by the mcrypt PHP extension. However, beginning in Laravel 5.1, encryption is handled by the openssl extension, which is more actively maintained. This is easily my favorite aspect of the new release. Please, everyone else, follow their example and stop using mcrypt in your projects.
- colinramsay 11y agoAnnoyingly I just set up a Laravel install for evaluation on OSX and wrestled with getting mcrypt to work!
- sarciszewski 11y agoSorry to hear that. If mcrypt is such a pain for OSX users, I might offer to refactor some other frameworks' libraries to use openssl in the near future. Why mcrypt sucks: https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/05/if-you-re-typing-word-mcrypt-into-your-code-you-re-doing-it-wrong https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/05/if-you-re-typing-word-mcr...
- ceejayoz 11y ago> If mcrypt is such a pain for OSX users It's not, if you're using Homebrew (which you should be). `brew install php56-mcrypt` and you're done.
- colinramsay 11y agoI am using homebrew but it definitely wasn't that simple. I think it was because my OSX (for some reason) wasn't using the right PHP version and so installing mcrypt from homebrew didn't have any effect until I reconfigured apache.
- fideloper 11y agoIM(not so H)O, wrestling with Mac is not worth anyone's time. Using Vagrant or a similar VM setup will get you in an environment much more like "production" and with fewer headaches caused by mac's special snowflake OS. (I personally use Mac as my host OS, because I love it, except when it comes to installing server software).
- noir_lord 11y agoJust upgraded a large 5 to 5.1 codebase in under 5 minutes (4 of that was composer ;) ) and everything passed functional testing. Outstanding work and the new docs are an excellent improvement.
- mtbcoder 11y agoBy extension, would Lumen (Laravel's micro framework sibling) also now have LTS releases?
- fideloper 11y agoIt will use 5.1's base libraries, so "yes" (with air quotes).
- colinramsay 11y agoThis is a great idea. My main gripe (on a very short evaluation) with Laravel is that the default application that artisan gives you comes with a lot of files dotted around the directory structure. With something like Rails these tend to be locked away in a gem and so when using CTRL+T (or similar) you get a lot of cruft popping up. That said I do like the things that Laravel gives you out of the box like auth and the command pattern.
- ceejayoz 11y ago`php artisan fresh` removes a lot of the default files. They're intended as a starting point for new users but are entirely removable.
- romanovcode 11y agoThis command has been removed since like half year ago. https://github.com/laravel/framework/commit/37ebc7ecc693405a717239ca30e0586d0a71e4d3 https://github.com/laravel/framework/commit/37ebc7ecc693405a...
- zefman 11y agoNo it hasn't https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/5.1/src/Illuminate/Foundation/Console/FreshCommand.php https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/5.1/src/Illuminate...
- ceejayoz 11y agoHeh, apparently it's going away. Again. https://github.com/laravel/framework/pull/9161 https://github.com/laravel/framework/pull/9161
- jbrooksuk 11y agoLooks like the Fresh command wasn't registered in the ArtisanServiceProvider. I have a PR open to fix this. https://github.com/laravel/framework/pull/9161 https://github.com/laravel/framework/pull/9161
- sirstompsalot 11y agoToo bad it is still slow as a glacier.
- jbrooksuk 11y agoHave you seen any benchmarks? Route and config caching is a huge improvement in 5.0
- sirstompsalot 11y agoYes, I have seen 5.0 benchmarks and even run some boom tests myself (admittedly nothing in a terrible amount of depth). The one I can cite offhand is this one http://blog.a-way-out.net/blog/2015/03/27/php-framework-benchmark/ http://blog.a-way-out.net/blog/2015/03/27/php-framework-benc... I'd be happy if you could link the benchmarks you have seen that demonstrates performance increases.
- romanovcode 11y agoProbably not when it's running on HHVM, it has 100% integration with it.
- fideloper 11y agoThis comment makes no sense. Well, it makes sense, but I don't believe it comes from someone who's really considered what they're saying. First, it's PHP. Same situation with Ruby and Python. All generally slow as a glacier (obvious exclusions being different implementations of said languages). Developers' focus on code speed is ridiculous (is that too strong a word?) due to relative inexpensiveness of "hardware" and the "fact" (yep, fact) that code is for building value. In most cases, that value is provided via an automated service. Speed of that automation is typically not critical (obvious exclusions being something like medical equipment or stock trading, or making people wait ridiculous seconds after clicking a button. Please don't Well Actually™ me to death with pedantry).
- sirstompsalot 11y agoGreat response, and you make a great point - focus on coding speed is a great reason to choose Laravel. It's also hugely popular and now with it's LTS, it's going to be around for a while. For me personally, I was a ZF 1.x guy; when I started a new project I chose Laravel, and it was a dream - crazy zippy (compared to ZF). But as I started to do more with it, I started to need to reduce my feature set, implement performance "features" just to retain a measure of speed. Is 5.x faster than 4.x? Sure. Does it include batteries and the kitchen sink? You bet. Do I still prefer a faster framework like Phalcon and implement the features I miss myself? Damned skippy.
- darkhorn 11y agoWhy space? Why not tabs? Why do I need to press 10 times space instead of 2 times the tab?
- pestaa 11y agoIf you're pressing spaces to align indentation, you're doing it very, very wrong.
- ericbarnes 11y agoBecause that's what the PHP community decided with PSR-2. It's an endless debate. :)
- bpicolo 11y agoEvery editor in existence supports pressing tab to insert spaces and correctly handling backspace in those instances
- Moru 11y agoYes, even my Atari could do that.
- jbrooksuk 11y agoI'm super excited about Laravel 5.1 We've been using it with Cachet (https://github.com/cachethq/cachet https://github.com/cachethq/cachet) for a couple of weeks. Mainly it was to make testing our API easier, the new PHPUnit extensions are so freaking amazing - it makes unit testing a dream. Other than that, other cool features I like are the LTS, dropping of the mcrypt extension requirement and also the broadcasting feature (which is worth checking out btw) Also this release contains some code that I've committed too, which is always a nice feeling :)