Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75744 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45912 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2014 08:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jul 2014 08:02:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:40992] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9D/2F-48607-9F8CCC35 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 04:02:02 -0400 Received: (qmail 12848 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jul 2014 08:01:58 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 12842, pid: 12845, t: 0.0671s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 21 Jul 2014 08:01:58 -0000 Message-ID: <53CCC8F6.6070808@lsces.co.uk> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:01:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <84603C6F-F984-4F73-892A-4416391E4769@ajf.me> <-4203495342985824219@unknownmsgid> <2d914cfcd940ecd5e90f5ced33967752@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 21/07/14 08:41, Kris Craig wrote: >> 1. The vote started with no real case for PHP 7 in there. I made >> > it clear in past weeks I intended to write one, and said it would take >> > time. The supposed ‘case for PHP 7’ that was added there by PHP 6 >> > proponents, is now turning out to be a further case for PHP 6. >> > > Agreed. You should have been the one to write that section. Ultimately, > you were. I haven't been following this very closely (though I am now). > If I'd known when it came to a vote that you still hadn't had a chance to > write your section, I would have asked that the vote be cancelled to give > you more time. Since the ORIGINAL RFC was for 'PHP6' or 'Not PHP6' without any particular proposed alternative it was basically already floored. Many of the reasons for not using PHP6 were all about breaking the versioning system. Currently the debate has changed and the question left is a simple one. Did PHP6 ever exist as a version? Since even the case for using PHP6 states the fact that PHP6 was abandoned in 2010 it does acknowledge that PHP6 has already been used as a version, so weakens it's own case. Removing that statement now would be inappropriate? So the discussion is not so much PHP6 or PHP7, but rather do we reopen the PHP6 branch again ... or honour the previous closing of that branch. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk