Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75263 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 42334 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2014 21:57:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Jul 2014 21:57:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.128.178 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.128.178 mail-ve0-f178.google.com Received: from [209.85.128.178] ([209.85.128.178:40950] helo=mail-ve0-f178.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 34/F0-30974-2E478B35 for ; Sat, 05 Jul 2014 17:57:56 -0400 Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id oy12so2685458veb.23 for ; Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:57:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=T6U2trLwvB9C8qnAteYAO87KO7EYUM402gZUUSwuQrk=; b=WLuwIRadq01rmNfedj6ITiFQGQBdlTJqo6J+NhUEIw4mxtJkJT7TCIE+k3p5d4IB5+ 1RiFfgJwIWLwKFNc5Xp66rb+X8JAdVmFXkN4j5bmsKwVLEBLImlRsH3NAv8BSS1WSu4p 5uZfGoTxe8/DgCJoCTBWcdryKVWmMY3Evyv70AI518ZKJpQKj1diZgZWCHj/uaQpIPkM yHmhi6bO4WX4ncr51qywBo8sNvgGuRP9LP5IN9F3TrvMLMfqYITLymCq1n+3zcBLvz/6 vsTjFHSyOFrA981Wljj8sgpbnglPxI7stH3Z6ckmHztYCwK/4v7SU4BJiuCcBtJ0Mswb Cmng== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFfVNA8kk58O9UeTC9rW69I/PZ87YUnpPfMveMcE9/Ax6jobnb5353Fe+ggeXFxDaAirUCrVvgxC8zoDm0AguEGa30EQ3nRolrHsYbJ/Nf3P722mLR/+FDj7FPxc27Ah/h/cNj X-Received: by 10.52.69.172 with SMTP id f12mr14802219vdu.26.1404597471149; Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:57:51 -0700 (PDT) References: <61EEC54E-7B8D-433E-A391-75F8D6A41E79@ajf.me> In-Reply-To: <61EEC54E-7B8D-433E-A391-75F8D6A41E79@ajf.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGkRGj9QS8RmlCwOiTtCUiDxvyopZvoqLnQ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 00:57:50 +0300 Message-ID: <650742796f119ed972a688a58e02242b@mail.gmail.com> To: Andrea Faulds Cc: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) Andrea, While I'm not sure whether this isn't a bit premature to have this discussion, if we were to have this discussion, the RFC should do a much better job at summarizing the discussions we already had in the past. First, it shouldn't be a yes/no for PHP 6, but rather, a 'PHP 6, PHP 7, or Defer Decision' or at least 'PHP 6 / PHP 7'. Secondly, contrary to what the RFC implies, the reasons against using version 6 went far beyond books - and covered much more important things (honestly I never quite understood the preoccupation with this books angle, I don't think anybody at all cares about it). If we decide to do the discussion now, the RFC should cover them (they were discussed in a thread named "About PHP6 ..." Third, numerous people (myself included) actively proposed we skip version 6 and go with version 7; Dismissing that with "I don't think the alternative naming options are really much better" doesn't seem to belong in an RFC. The merits of this option - which were really more about the drawbacks of calling it '6' and the lack of drawbacks of calling it '7' should be properly described in the RFC. Of course, you don't have to buy into that reasoning, but let's not tuck the discussion away under the carpet. If we were to have this discussion now, let's make the best cases we can for both options on the table, instead of focusing on just one and dismissing the opposition as something about books. Another couple of cents - both because of what I said here but also unrelated, I think /rfc/php6 is a bad name for this RFC (both because there's more than one option, but also because this is too generic for something as wide as the next version of PHP). Perhaps /rfc/php2015 is a better choice, or at least /rfc/php.next.name Thanks! :) Zeev > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:ajf@ajf.me] > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 12:24 AM > To: PHP > Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP > > Good evening, > > I am announcing a rather unorthodox RFC. > > With the advent of the phpng and uniform variable syntax RFCs, it looks likely > the next major release of PHP, to succeed the 5.x series, may appear > relatively soon. However, unlike with previous releases of PHP, it is not > entirely clear what it shall be called. > > This RFC attempts to settle the matter once and for all with a straight yes/no > vote as to whether the name should be PHP 6. Should it pass, the matter is > settled and we actually have a proper name for this fabled "PHP NEXT". Should > it fail, nothing is really lost, except that the discussion will inevitably resurface > at some point. The plan, really, is to hopefully get it over with now so we don't > have to have this discussion later, avoiding potential future bikeshedding or > derailment. > > This is the shortest RFC I've ever authored, and I'd greatly appreciate it if > everyone read the whole thing: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6 > > The plan for voting, if I think we should go ahead with it, is the same as a > normal RFC: at least 2 weeks after proposed to internals, voting for at least 1 > week. > > Thanks! > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: > http://www.php.net/unsub.php