Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75269
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E0A23B54-C1E5-446A-AB97-3A90A336EC0D@ajf.me>
References: <61EEC54E-7B8D-433E-A391-75F8D6A41E79@ajf.me>
	<650742796f119ed972a688a58e02242b@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA0E4289-C03E-48E0-ACA3-FB9CD9632FBD@ajf.me>
	<d551b5cd173fde7b3192f9fb740fc4e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<E0A23B54-C1E5-446A-AB97-3A90A336EC0D@ajf.me>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 17:23:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSyJCDwJUqh4OuWd9YnDjcFMj3XqafJbOLM-uV_ipoM5XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, PHP <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a211c1d94b604fd7b5dab
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--089e013a211c1d94b604fd7b5dab
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
> On 6 Jul 2014, at 00:05, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> > I think there's some confusion here.
> >
> > If the next version of PHP is going to be a major one (which is clearly
> > defined in https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess), then I believe the
> > only two options that were ever raised are PHP 6 and PHP 7.  If you're
> > aware of other proposals that were made then please state them,
> otherwise,
> > I think it's a very clear decision between 6 and 7 - and putting this a=
s
> a
> > 'yes/no' for 6 gives it undue advantage.
>
> Well, if we have the current yes/no to PHP 6 vote, then if it passes, we
> get PHP 6. If it doesn=E2=80=99t pass, we=E2=80=99re back where we were b=
efore.
>
> If we go for PHP 6/PHP 7 vote, then the result is unclear. Would one
> option be the default? Would it be PHP 7 if it=E2=80=99s not PHP 6? Would=
 it be PHP
> 6 if it=E2=80=99s not PHP 7? In which case, what=E2=80=99s the point in a=
 majority? We
> could hold a 50%+1 vote, but such a vote would be contentious and would b=
e
> a popularity contest, not requiring consensus. If we don=E2=80=99t have a=
 default,
> and either 6 has to get 2/3 or 7 has to get 2/3, then we should have an
> Other option, or a Continue Discussion option, or both. This is all way t=
oo
> complicated for me and I don=E2=80=99t want the vote to be contentious or=
 confusing.
>
> Hence, it is a Yes/No vote to PHP 6. If it fails, we are back to where we
> were before. If it passes, the name is PHP 6. It could not be more
> straightforward, and the result cannot be misinterpreted. It requires a 2=
/3
> majority to pass, so it would require consensus. Again, this is my positi=
on
> and I am sticking to it. I see no good reason to complicate matters.
>

I tend to agree.  PHP 6 is the next increment.  The question is whether we
should continue following that standard or break from it for the reasons
raised in the previous thread.  If we break from it, then we'd have to
decide what the next version name would be.  However, based on the results
of the previous thread on this matter, it seems extremely unlikely that the
vote wouldn't be yes for PHP 6, so I don't think there's any pressing need
to expand the scope of this vote beyond that.  We should first establish
whether or not we're sticking with the current conventions and going with
PHP 6.  If the vote is in favor of going another route, we can then put
together a new RFC to figure out what the new convention should be (whether
to arbitrarily skip a version increment or do away with the incremental
number entirely and go with something else, like "PHP <year>" or "PHP
<name>").

I certainly wouldn't agree that 7 is the only other option.  Personally, my
vote would be to keep the current naming convention and not skip 6.  But if
the outcome goes the other way, my preference would be to break from the
incremental number system altogether because that'd be less confusing than
an arbitrary skip, so it'd make more sense to be able to vote on that when
and if people vote to discontinue the current naming convention and not go
with the next increment of 6.

--Kris

--089e013a211c1d94b604fd7b5dab--