Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75751
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mike.php.net@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <D715AD8F-ADEF-4ED3-88F6-27F73EAF13F6@ajf.me>
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>
	<D715AD8F-ADEF-4ED3-88F6-27F73EAF13F6@ajf.me>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:21:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CALJZF3ivpM6UFjTvAMnL6gc_1yCm5+TNBkyf9uAB7YJWjTOh1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133c20a1cd98204feb0a31a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)

--001a1133c20a1cd98204feb0a31a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 20 Jul 2014 23:32, "Andrea Faulds" <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Jul 2014, at 22:28, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > After the vote has been started the RFC was edited by Zeev in order to
strengthen the case for PHP 7. There is nothing wrong with that, adding
additional arguments to an RFC is perfectly fine by me.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > As such I can understand Andrea's decision to close this vote until
tempers had time to cool down and both sides had a chance to be fairly
represented.
>
> It also wasn=E2=80=99t really fair of me to start a vote when there wasn=
=E2=80=99t really
a case for 7, now that I think about it. I suppose that makes my later
decision hypocritical, but it does mean we=E2=80=99re in a better place now=
 when we
have a second vote, as we have two cases.

To sum it up:

6 would be the logical number for the next major version, that's just a
fact.
I would go with it. But I and probably most others who would go with 6
wouldn't really be hurt if we went with 7.

On the other hand there would be quite some people hurt if we went with 6.
So, maybe it's just me,  but there seems to only be a "case" for 7.

Let's think about the people, not only numbers and facts. We often forget
about that when "just" answering mails.

Cheers,
Mike

--001a1133c20a1cd98204feb0a31a--