Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71967
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain oracle.com designates 156.151.31.81 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <52EDB25B.10004@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:50:03 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Zarkos <Stephen.Zarkos@microsoft.com>,
        PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <e0681b3331094323d383a048471790f8.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>	<1391171792.2941.130.camel@guybrush>	<52EB9A16.5060605@phpdoc.de>	<1391172906.2941.140.camel@guybrush>	<9810c708a9fcc543a263365b5d7c2a63@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEKnhAG+4F2xoGZBkN5fBCa4mDE+3c-CMOUA_LBmtXboLvmg6g@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEZPtU6y-ruNSozJkm7xB-iMMcNZJTrmG4QmZ+eHcsnE2ypO7g@mail.gmail.com>	<52ECF62A.5060401@lsces.co.uk> <CAH-PCH5bCAC8ehgL=xBogv1sE=Z2Z7_RsGfPORX56bMrASvjgQ@mail.gmail.com> <8342d52536b143739928e0a533c750fe@BY2PR03MB060.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <8342d52536b143739928e0a533c750fe@BY2PR03MB060.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string length
 and integer
From: christopher.jones@oracle.com (Christopher Jones)



On 2/1/14 11:19 AM, Stephen Zarkos wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyra3l@gmail.com]
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I see that the vote currently has swung from yes to no for including
>>> in
>>> 5.6 but actually there is no option to include it even in PHP6? The
>>> improvement is required, needs proper planning because of the impact
>>> on many third parties, and should be planned now on the basis of a new
>> PHP6.
>>>
>>>
>> Nobody said that if rejected this can't be considered for PHP6.
>> On the contrary, many of the no voters explained that they would have
>> voted yes if the target version would have been 6.0.
>
> This is not directed at you guys in particular, but this is just the
> latest thread to mention PHP6 so I'll say it here.  I know at least
> my team is frustrated every time "why not PHP6?" is mentioned in
> this thread.
>
> There is no PHP 6.  If there was this RFC would have had two simple
> options; merge for PHP 6.0, merge for both 5.6 & 6.0.  The
> justification for the latter option being that 5.6+ would provide a
> more reasonable upgrade path for 6.  It may not be meant this way,
> but suggesting we merge this into PHP6 simply sounds disrespectful.
> There's no point in targeting some ethereal release, that's just a
> way of kicking this down the road so it can be ignored for a little
> longer.  Without a plan forward to a release, even merging to Master
> is just another place for this to languish.
>
> And yes, I know there has been some (hopefully) serious discussion
> on PHP6 recently, but that happens every year.  Maybe it will happen
> this time?  IMHO, if PHP 5 has slipped happily into middle age and
> cannot fathom such change anymore, then perhaps this community
> should create a roadmap to a new branch where more progressive
> development can be realized.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve

If PHP 6 isn't branched/scheduled soon, then I would be in favor of
merging the feature to PHP 5.7.

However I do believe this change will be a good spring board for a PHP
6 branch, and I sense that talk about PHP 6 is serious at the moment.
This is why I'm don't view any "No" votes as disrespectful.

Chris

-- 
christopher.jones@oracle.com  http://twitter.com/ghrd
Free PHP & Oracle book:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/php/underground-php-oracle-manual-098250.html