Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75730
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.170 as permitted sender)
References: <84603C6F-F984-4F73-892A-4416391E4769@ajf.me> <FF53F427-6E40-439F-ADCC-A1AD0E808CA4@ajf.me>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1407202212360.4247@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <CAF+90c_bswMjh5J_mJ2Jj3b2WDr5eYWcEAa7s-nrjrqkDsyW4A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_bswMjh5J_mJ2Jj3b2WDr5eYWcEAa7s-nrjrqkDsyW4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 00:46:44 +0300
Message-ID: <-4203495342985824219@unknownmsgid>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> On 21 =D7=91=D7=99=D7=95=D7=9C 2014, at 00:29, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@g=
mail.com> wrote:
>
> However at the same time a number of paragraphs were removed that were
> arguing for PHP 6, at least in part. The only thing that was left in "The
> case for PHP 6" was a single paragraph, of which half was really just an
> explanation of the general situation.
>
> Effectively the edits made the RFC text heavily biased. It's okay to edit
> an RFC to add arguments for your side, but I find it discourteous and
> disingenuous to remove arguments from the opposing side at the same time.

Again this was mainly me replacing the not-so-convincing case for PHP
7 (that's how these two paragraphs were referred to when they were
added, after my complaints about the RFC being one sided PHP 6 only,
you can check the archives) with a more convincing one.  But I'm of
course fine with them being re-added if the proponents of 6 it helps
illustrate the case.

I do think that it was a bit problematic that when I asked to restart
the vote it was rejected, but as the vote leaned heavily towards 7 (it
was 25 to 15 right before it was stopped, with 7 gaining very rapidly)
- it was done.  But, I don't view it as a huge deal.

> As such I can understand Andrea's decision to close this vote until tempe=
rs
> had time to cool down and both sides had a chance to be fairly represente=
d.

As I said weeks ago, I think we need the best case for 6 and the best
case for 7, and put it up for a vote.  I would appreciate it if we
didn't wait indefinitely for that, after spending much of my morning
getting shouted at for frantically typing this RFC up instead of
getting my daughters to kindergarten :)

Zeev