Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75283
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.216 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: <53B953A8.7070904@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 16:08:02 +0100
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A81D09BC-A2FF-465E-9D6B-D84CC73F24DE@ajf.me>
References: <61EEC54E-7B8D-433E-A391-75F8D6A41E79@ajf.me> <1E40C2BC-3C86-4D20-9C34-C8E0B6BFF925@ajf.me> <53B953A8.7070904@lsces.co.uk>
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


On 6 Jul 2014, at 14:48, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:

> Andrea - Your total disregard for anything other then a a single =
reason
> related to books is a problem here. While printed /electronic books =
are
> a part of the problem with the tag PHP6, there are considerable
> additional references to that tag over the last 10+ years, along with =
a
> substantial amount of code in the code base which was a dead end. PHP6
> has been linked with development work which will not now be taken =
forward.

I don=92t have a total disregard for it. I acknowledge the argument that =
PHP 6 was a real thing, although it never was released properly and was =
eventually abandoned. If the RFC isn=92t clear enough about this =
argument, again, I welcome suggestions to improve it.

I=92d suggest talking with me on IRC about it (#php.pecl on EFNet) if =
you catch me there, might mean less noise than here on the list. Of =
course, nothing wrong with email.

> To some extent WHAT the next version is released as is perhaps not the
> problem here, but rather being able to simply identify third party
> discussions relating to the current roadmap(s) for PHPNext? It's just
> the matter of ring fencing what is the current roadmap and plan for
> PHPNext and isolating that from the older existing PHP6 documented =
plans
> ... The use of PHP7 can be simply explained, fits in perfectly with =
the
> code base, and provides a clean tag to move forward? Using some
> alternative tag until a release is ready and then switching back to =
PHP6
> simply does not make sense?

We have no PHP-6 or PHP-6.0 tag/branch in git, I see no reason why we =
wouldn=92t call it PHP 6 before release, if we decide to call it PHP 6, =
of course.

I think it=92s generally clear what=92s for the new PHP 6 and what=92s =
for the old; anything from after the old PHP 6 was abandoned must be =
about a new PHP 6, and anything from before it must be about the old PHP =
6. If this RFC were to pass with people voting for 6, then it would be =
pretty clear that anything coming after it was about the new PHP 6.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/