Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75277
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<E84E640D-6D9C-4F35-979A-655E57FB43EC@ajf.me>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 19:07:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSw7pkX_0d63U0THPC3s5gCCV47F-6GK_43=6BfEo4kqvw@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=e89a8f6426a0b5821a04fd7cd160
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--e89a8f6426a0b5821a04fd7cd160
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
> 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 RF=
C
> acceptable to both sides.
>
> Right. As I said, I=E2=80=99m willing to improve the Rationale section wi=
th
> suggestions, I just can=E2=80=99t think of many other arguments for at th=
e moment.
> Perhaps I need to delve deeper and read some more previous discussions. I=
=E2=80=99m
> not in favour of the version skip, and though I can play devil=E2=80=99s =
advocate,
> I am not really very good at doing so here. I don=E2=80=99t dispute that =
the
> Rationale section could do with improvement.
>
> >
> > 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=E2=80=99m not exactly sure what you=E2=80=99re 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 maj=
or
> version number.
>
>
That's exactly my point; i.e. "2/3.... whether or not" seems ambiguous to
me.  Does that mean that a 2/3 "yes" vote is required for the version to be
PHP 6?  Or does it mean that a 2/3 "no" vote is required for the version
*not* to be PHP 6?

--Kris

--e89a8f6426a0b5821a04fd7cd160--