Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75721
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.53 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <CAPg3XxKKLRKn0N1_zpkDanCPwN5uGjwcR3nQ6bYnftqvuba7EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:11:43 -0700
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2F941D55-DC95-4454-AD53-D58B729EF32B@zend.com>
References: <84603C6F-F984-4F73-892A-4416391E4769@ajf.me> <CAPg3XxKKLRKn0N1_zpkDanCPwN5uGjwcR3nQ6bYnftqvuba7EQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)

On Jul 20, 2014, at 8:39 AM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> =
wrote:

>=20
> 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.
>=20
> It also contains, IMO unnecessarily, light-hearted and jokey comments =
not
> befitting an RFC  =97 unless you see the RFC as a joke too ;) =97 =
about 6 being
> a failed version in other software, and 7 a lucky number. Seriously?..
>=20
> The RFC as a whole is very light on trying to summarise, or at least
> provide reference to, the history of "PHP 6=94 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.
>=20
> Personally, regardless of the content of the RFC, I feel that the =
choice is
> obvious. I=92m just a little concerned about the lack of quality from =
both
> =93sides=94 in presenting their argument(s), or not.

I actually think that both perception and facts need to be take into =
account on naming/version number decisions.
I must say I do share the perception that many version 6=92s in =
open-source have been failures and I=92ve heard many people ridiculing =
the PHP 6 is like Perl 6. So I don=92t think it=92s irrelevant. - This =
is perception but it matters.

Fact - There is SO much PHP 6 content out there and many folks think =
they know what PHP 6 is that I think the confusion we=92d be creating in =
calling this PHP 6 would be huge and unnecessary. To the point I am even =
surprised we have folks here who are resisting not calling it PHP 6. It =
feels pretty obvious to me that we are doing people a disservice calling =
it PHP 6.

But anyway, didn=92t want to restart the discussion but just wanted to =
point out that RFC should address both perception and fact because both =
matter. It=92s not just a technical discussion.

Andi