Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65141
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51008FE0.7010908@oracle.com>
References: <CAEZPtU5n3szgXA_L7bBwqg+agMekHnLe6ZPgqec22BgAa6VzWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5pHhKoDwukhr-Zh89jHQ6atut67tJDLQO1192K_h9B5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<50FDC4D8.6030105@oracle.com>
	<51001FE2.7090109@anderiasch.de>
	<51008FE0.7010908@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 06:28:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4q-S_8AhZFkD2d0oR6nkBTGGLMdDhjeQt1MBh-7YF9rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Jones <christopher.jones@oracle.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Florian Anderiasch <ml@anderiasch.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554d1fe4efdd004d40215a0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][vote] 5.3 EOL
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--bcaec554d1fe4efdd004d40215a0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Chris,

On Jan 24, 2013 2:35 AM, "Christopher Jones" <christopher.jones@oracle.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/23/2013 09:37 AM, Florian Anderiasch wrote:
>>
>> On 01/21/2013 11:44 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Pierre,
>>>
>>> Can you review this RFC and the votes?  The wording "5.5 final
>>> release" needs assessing.  You probably meant "first 5.5 production
>>> release".  If anyone interpreted it as it is actually written
>>> i.e. "terminal 5.5 release", then the vote needs to be re-run.
>>
>>
>> How do you plan to find out who would've taken it that way? Ask all who
>> voted?
>
>
> Probably. I suggest being practical and getting a best-effort feel for it.
> Lack of responses to my email is one indicator that the the community
> doesn't have an issue with the RFC wording.
>
>
>> Maybe it sounds more ambiguous for a native speaker, but I actually had
>> to reread this mail to get your point. I've never heard anyone use
>> "final" as "terminal",
>
>
> I have. There is also a subtle distinction between the use of "final" in
> "final 5.5.0" and "final 5.5".
>
>
>> the "final" in the software development domain
>> has always been the name for the version after the RCs, at least for me.
>
>
> That's the way I took it for my vote.  The next day I realized that
non-native
> English speakers might possibly have thought otherwise.

I asked many native speakers and all understood it as "when 5.5.0 stable
release will be announced".

Cheers,
Pierre

--bcaec554d1fe4efdd004d40215a0--