Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75271
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.207 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSwgqJxvh75cn-jO22okztrFOVyT3JPe+gP6ef-iCHe-tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 01:42:34 +0100
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>,
 PHP <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E84E640D-6D9C-4F35-979A-655E57FB43EC@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> <CAKOpQSyJCDwJUqh4OuWd9YnDjcFMj3XqafJbOLM-uV_ipoM5XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKOpQSwgqJxvh75cn-jO22okztrFOVyT3JPe+gP6ef-iCHe-tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


On 6 Jul 2014, at 01:29, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a =
more comprehensive section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking =
from the current convention.  Another section could be created to =
outline the other side.  What we don't want is a situation where Zeev =
feels compelled to write a competing RFC.  That could get messy, so I =
think it'd be best if the two of you could find enough common ground to =
make this RFC acceptable to both sides.

Right. As I said, I=92m willing to improve the Rationale section with =
suggestions, I just can=92t think of many other arguments for at the =
moment. Perhaps I need to delve deeper and read some more previous =
discussions. I=92m not in favour of the version skip, and though I can =
play devil=92s advocate, I am not really very good at doing so here. I =
don=92t dispute that the Rationale section could do with improvement.

>=20
> I'd also recommend that, since you're calling for a 2/3 vote, you =
specify more clearly what it is that requires 2/3; breaking the current =
convention or keeping the current convention?  I'm guessing you probably =
meant the former, but the wording seemed a bit vague on that point to =
me.

I=92m not exactly sure what you=92re talking about here, but to clarify: =
It is a 2/3 majority-required vote on whether or not the name should be =
PHP 6. That would be in line with the current convention of incrementing =
the major version number.


I can see Zeev=92s point that 7 is the main other option (though I also =
think 6.1, or codenames, are possible though unlikely other options). =
However, I don=92t want to call a 50%+1 6/7 vote because it just feels =
like too narrow of a majority. I suppose if that 6 yes/no vote fails, I =
might consider a 50%+1 6/7 vote.

Bear in mind I proposed at some point recently that we use 2/3 for all =
votes. That was largely related to the 64bit RFC, but I still agree with =
the principle.

To be honest, I may end up retreating at this point and just calling a =
50%+1 before even running a 2/3 one. My problem with that is that I feel =
such a narrow majority would be too contentious and not end the =
discussion for good.

Sadly, it is not realistic to hold a vote on the majority with which to =
vote. ;)

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/