Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50552 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 15655 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2010 17:38:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Nov 2010 17:38:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.42 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.161.42 mail-fx0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.161.42] ([209.85.161.42:33444] helo=mail-fx0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 36/56-16484-B2F9EEC4 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:38:52 -0500 Received: by fxm11 with SMTP id 11so978912fxm.29 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:38:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dRZIti7zVVKc9OQr3YU8loB8CtDSOuyf6MAXXGMVYN8=; b=r5Y/PGcni2/fLzlyTv7y/KwpxIY0EpWEzpJAF59EwUKArCNeRCIrWDF+LpXz3azS0S gB9HqenIJuXx7ePuwd4FFKhYYrL9+Ds8YiNQEwtCu7BbyDfAYnf1cqKtk7G/0cQzWzw4 CDMrpGTeocsP8LE+eM33H4VB5dj3pxiTOWh0o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZjutFJFPC/iugJXeDoBtsjRwRIbeqNk2FcQxqIV15jOE62r7zILujenYn5ODm1btLL vfZK/Psdjg3ic33qZgfEAov1hRZg3uojaC1GAS39klJ13/1o1pdbBTAMD28MGipVXDFv GwZdycoNq8FG7Eh6JcKaCIn4zPMGxkcomtCGo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.72.1 with SMTP id k1mr1032883faj.111.1290706728590; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:38:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.83.142 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:38:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4CEE9C5F.3040206@lerdorf.com> References: <73.C4.59959.876BBEC4@pb1.pair.com> <3EA67EA2-A9B1-4DFB-8A30-05B37BCA313B@iki.fi> <8757232E56758B42B2EE4F9D2CA019C9154B70@US-EX2.zend.net> <1290705653.7033.73.camel@guybrush> <4CEE9C5F.3040206@lerdorf.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:38:48 +0100 Message-ID: To: Rasmus Lerdorf Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= , Andi Gutmans , Jani Taskinen , davey@php.net, PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4 From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) hi Rasmus, 2010/11/25 Rasmus Lerdorf : > On 11/25/10 9:20 AM, Johannes Schl=FCter wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 17:11 +0000, Andi Gutmans wrote: >>> For what it's worth the changes we've made in the Zend Engine around >>> performance and memory use could warrant a major version. Every major >>> version of PHP in the past has been driven foremost by major engine >>> overhauls. >> >> Yes, larger changes to the engine changed the major number. But all of >> them had a big effect. This is "only" performance. No functionality. 90% >> of the users won't notice it. Whereas everbody oticed the change from3 >> to 4 or the new object model in 5. Changing the major number has two big >> effects: a) marketing b) more fear for doing the upgrade. >> >> I value b) as the more relevant factor to monitor. > > Looking through trunk I think we are in pretty good shape. =A0I don't > think cherry-picking and branch merging is an issue at this point. =A0A > 5.4 with the performance improvements, Traits, minus the type hinting > breakage is something we can get out pretty quickly without causing any > sort of PHP 6 confusion or breaking existing apps. Agreed, a php6 now just does not make sense, no matter from which point of = view. I would not define 5.4 as being in a good shape but in a very promising shape to prepare a release. Removing the breakage, do some clear review of what we have (from a BC pov for one) and we could begin with a 5.4 release. However let get the RFC sorted out first before (it seems that we clearly have a consensus on most parts, time lines need to be adapted to avoid 5 releases at the same time :). Indeed, the type hint patch should be reverted as well, the sooner the bett= er. Cheers, --=20 Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org