Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73547
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJzDObdezweZWtEq3sHXijju78B+rOcJ6DEaWv5XaE=xBFpTsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <533C0713.9070106@eliw.com>
	<CAJW__o0cWAmxpy=C2+HXp2KXt70yRXmruwd6WyRcxGw6z1NhMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<533C6E5F.4020702@eliw.com>
	<533C7DB1.5020401@lsces.co.uk>
	<CAKOpQSxGeti8RThLtmX2ScCYvaSKvWMUCStjrFdzvu0ZMROLAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJzDObdezweZWtEq3sHXijju78B+rOcJ6DEaWv5XaE=xBFpTsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 21:33:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSx+hSDrZ2vTpwnnjPZ5d0O2g9AstmogLbVqA5AwLXAVuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Jon Richardson <adamjonr@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149c04e2efecc04f61be823
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About PHP6 ...
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--089e0149c04e2efecc04f61be823
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Adam Jon Richardson <adamjonr@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We shouldn't skip an entire version increment just because a few authors
> > screwed-up.  I don't know a single person who refers to any part of the
> 5.x
> > branch as PHP 6, nor have I heard a single developer complain that there
> > will be confusion when PHP 6 is released.  Skipping the version increment
> > would be a solution in search of a problem and would only serve to cause
> > more confusion.
>
> Getting back to your points:
>
> - You said "a few authors screwed-up." I think we can both agree that
> there are many websites that have information about the now-defunct
> branch of PHP 6. Try revising the search to "php 6" + unicode,
> filtering out results based on url, etc. Now, you may go on to say
> that the existence of this information shouldn't be a reason to
> abandon the naming convention. Perhaps. But, I would confidently argue
> that the number of conflicting resources will not be "few."
>

Well now we're arguing semantics.  Seeing as how you have to include these
filters and the results only make-up a tiny fraction of the total--
combined with the fact that those results are all from more than half a
decade ago-- I think the word "few" is generous.


>
> - You said you've not hear a single developer complain that there will
> be confusion. I believe you've heard a few on this very list :)
>

Yes, and only on this very list.  Nowhere else.  OP mentioned it being a
hot topic at conferences and I'm just saying that that has not been my
experience at all.  In fact, this is the first I've heard anyone complain
of the coming PHP 6 release somehow being confused with 5.x because of a
few mistitled books from the previous decade.  I certainly don't think it's
worth all the confusion that would result from skipping an entire major
version increment.

--Kris

--089e0149c04e2efecc04f61be823--