Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65728
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain yahoo.de from 77.238.189.210 cause and error)
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.de;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=h4bfCDMqWst7dFBnELfHp3Oq/Hv492zRvEPFpIM0WlOJucN52fZkmce6IgP5nWrJz/KFn7/5LbiKdvJaF62dpHclZdE8RJ96mpmkURjDhHmwqUj+mo8hXm63ueGOVpai6Ci1qRn0Ab82BHMGuKFDSpRUhpB2+68OfpOtu188J5c=;
References: <5d21b42656d49b4a71d9f808541bd745@mail.gmail.com> <1359562177.37091.YahooMailNeo@web133001.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1359562237.22084.YahooMailNeo@web133001.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <a38a9590ac5c68c454b8340538a03690@mail.gmail.com> <1360073623.83739.YahooMailNeo@web133006.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <c64ae0a6f325410c882344f5171f2695@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1360338462.71260.YahooMailNeo@web133005.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 15:47:42 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: hakre <hanskrentel@yahoo.de>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <c64ae0a6f325410c882344f5171f2695@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: hanskrentel@yahoo.de (hakre)

=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Urspr=FCngliche Message -----=0A> Von: Zeev Suraski <zeev=
@zend.com>=0A> An: hakre <hanskrentel@yahoo.de>=0A> CC: internals@lists.php=
.net=0A> Gesendet: 15:31 Dienstag, 5.Februar 2013=0A> Betreff: RE: [PHP-DEV=
] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution=0A> =0A>>  > =
Based on an 18 month release cycle, and assuming we release 5.5.0 in=0A>>  =
> mid 2013, 5.6.0 will come out late 2014.=0A>> =0A>>  I wonder where you p=
ick those quantifications from, according to=0A>>  https://wiki.php.net/rfc=
/releaseprocess there is 12 month cycle/tact, and=0A>>  according to the re=
lease date of PHP=0A>>  5.4 major releases (golden) are scheduled for the f=
irst of march each year=0A>>  (alphas accordingly earlier).=0A> =0A> =0A> I=
'm taking it from both reality and the discussions we had surrounding the=
=0A> release process RFC (in short, the 'yearly' in there was subject to =
=0A> change=0A> without notice;=A0 It's not an 11th commandment).=A0 I see =
good reasons not to=0A> go with a yearly release cycle, considering there's=
 next to nobody actually=0A> interested in consuming those releases, but th=
at's another story.=0A=0AWell in/for reality I only care about the document=
ation. If the RFC has no use to communicate a qualified decision, this shou=
ld be clearly written down somewhere if that is a common good.=0A=0AAlso I =
have problems to decipher the "11th commandment" - "Thou shalt not speak il=
l of any fellow Republican." ???=0A=0AAnd as you talk about it: do you know=
 if there was criticism with the yearly release cycle before the new releas=
e process? I can imagine a time when a new PHP major was released in a ~yea=
rly cycle, but I can not remember that somebody didn't consume those nor wa=
s hurt by that.=0A=0A> =0A>>  >>=A0 > * Which benefits does Zend Inc. see i=
n contributing the =0A> Opcode=0A>>  >> cache?=0A>>  >=0A>>  > Simply put, =
this could benefit PHP greatly without negatively=0A>>  > affecting our bus=
iness in any way.=0A>> =0A>>  And not simply put?=0A> =0A> Complexly put, t=
his could benefit PHP greatly without negatively affecting=0A> our business=
 in any way.=A0 I don't intend to become argumentative.=A0 =0A> You're=0A> =
obviously entitled to your opinion and I think that there's nothing I could=
=0A> say that would change it.=0A=0AThanks for your feedback and please res=
t assured that I'm not entitled to any opinion about Zend in this case. Act=
ually the opposite is the case which is why I was asking again.=0A=0AI norm=
ally would expect that there is something positive (in contrast to non-nega=
tive) in opening the source, e.g. getting a benefit from the collaborative =
development model.=0A=0A-- hakre=0A