Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75274
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.128.170 as permitted sender)
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSwgqJxvh75cn-jO22okztrFOVyT3JPe+gP6ef-iCHe-tg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQGkRGj9QS8RmlCwOiTtCUiDxvyopQI1LJITAc0jkb4CCbfRGAEywWg0AdLknZwCTk/om5uN2kcg
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 04:13:51 +0300
Message-ID: <1e8b4df08c14971746946ed85ca8fa22@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc1a9c5656c504fd7c1246
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

--047d7bdc1a9c5656c504fd7c1246
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I want to point out that neither options (6 nor 7) break the our
convention.  PHP 6 was a live project that was worked on by many people,
and known as such by many many more;  Even though it never reached GA =E2=
=80=93
there was definitely software named PHP 6.  Whether reusing that version
number for something completely different several years later constitutes
breaking the current convention or applying it to reality it is open for
interpretation.  I also suggest we don=E2=80=99t go in the direction of the=
 2/3
interpretation =E2=80=93 as I pointed out in the past this places undue pow=
er in
the hands of the RFC author and his interpretation of the voting RFC (which
absolutely needs to be amended to fix that).  That=E2=80=99s yet another re=
ason on
why the vote should be between 6 or 7 so that problem goes away completely
=E2=80=93 it becomes a clear choice that will have result in a clear cut de=
cision.



If we keep it as a =E2=80=98PHP 6 or nada=E2=80=99 there=E2=80=99s a fair c=
hance I=E2=80=99ll write an
alternative RFC, most probably not a =E2=80=987 or nada=E2=80=99 but the mu=
ch more fair =E2=80=986
or 7=E2=80=99 RFC.  From the beginning, people who believed there was a pro=
blem
with using PHP 6 said we should skip a version, and not move to 6.1 or
change our versioning scheme.  It was only those who opposed it (i.e. those
who believed we should go with 6) that brought up alternative ideas =E2=80=
=93 but
really wanted to stick with 6.  Judging from what you said, if you had 3
options, 6, 7 or change_versioning_scheme, you=E2=80=99d pick the first opt=
ion, not
the last.  From the discussion we had on internals =E2=80=93 nobody=E2=80=
=99s first choice
was that change_versioning_scheme option, it was either 6 or 7, stick or
skip.  That=E2=80=99s why it makes absolute sense to have these as the two =
options
available for voting.



If 7 gets chosen and you end up feeling that it=E2=80=99s so horrendous we =
need to
change our entire versioning scheme, you=E2=80=99d of course have the optio=
n of
proposing another versioning scheme and convince people to vote for it=E2=
=80=A6
But right now, you=E2=80=99re adding options which are both completely outs=
ide the
realm of our versioning scheme, AND aren=E2=80=99t what you=E2=80=99d vote =
for anyway =E2=80=93
just to avoid having the real other option that=E2=80=99s on the table be a=
 valid
choice for voting.

I still absolutely think we should bury this until later in the project=E2=
=80=99s
lifecycle as our energy **right now** is probably much better spent
elsewhere.



Zeev



*From:* Kris Craig [mailto:kris.craig@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, July 06, 2014 3:29 AM
*To:* Andrea Faulds
*Cc:* Zeev Suraski; PHP
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP



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.



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.



--Kris

--047d7bdc1a9c5656c504fd7c1246--