Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75714
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <84603C6F-F984-4F73-892A-4416391E4769@ajf.me>
References: <84603C6F-F984-4F73-892A-4416391E4769@ajf.me>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:39:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg3XxKKLRKn0N1_zpkDanCPwN5uGjwcR3nQ6bYnftqvuba7EQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e8f097f1c804fea1cf49
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn)

--001a11c2e8f097f1c804fea1cf49
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 20 July 2014 00:26, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

> Good evening,
>
> It is finally time to settle this matter once and for all. What shall be
> the name of the next release of PHP: PHP 6 or PHP 7?
>

It might be just me, but the whole RFC actually seems particularly
one-sided. The argument for PHP 6 is very short and reads half-baked.  The
overwhelming majority of this very short section of the RFC is spent
describing how naming the release =E2=80=9CPHP 6=E2=80=9D will be a problem=
, with a very
wishy-washy conclusion that the author =E2=80=9Cexpects=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=
=9Cthinks=E2=80=9D it won=E2=80=99t end
up being a problem. The PHP 6 section makes no attempt to provide counter
points to things mentioned in the following section, nor really attempts to
make *any* strong point at all.

As for the PHP 7 section, this is by far the dominant part of the RFC. Both
in terms of physical presence, but also points and counter-points.

It also contains, IMO unnecessarily, light-hearted and jokey comments not
befitting an RFC  =E2=80=94 unless you see the RFC as a joke too ;) =E2=80=
=94 about 6 being
a failed version in other software, and 7 a lucky number. Seriously?..

The RFC as a whole is very light on trying to summarise, or at least
provide reference to, the history of "PHP 6=E2=80=9D and discussions around=
 it.
This is disappointing, if the aim was to see a balanced summary of previous
discussions.  However, this particular gripe is a common issue with our
RFCs as a whole.

Personally, regardless of the content of the RFC, I feel that the choice is
obvious. I=E2=80=99m just a little concerned about the lack of quality from=
 both
=E2=80=9Csides=E2=80=9D in presenting their argument(s), or not.


>
> The poll is now open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote
>
> Voting shall end in a week=E2=80=99s time on 2014-07-27.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a11c2e8f097f1c804fea1cf49--