Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75794
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.199 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: <9c22c99010ba92136bb66adb873d1335@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:51:17 +0100
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <95B3D07B-20D9-46D9-9B5A-3E2802822D14@ajf.me>
References: <b39ebab3d19d76cda9bafa25919c0e67@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c9WXj0mLc=JnKNe5DBVVsuSySr8p98SwTKCktgM8-S9tA@mail.gmail.com> <405777E2-9B2C-426F-97D8-97CF6A9E63E8@ajf.me> <7e9cdb1f72acc146fbbd9a3a5181531c@mail.gmail.com> <51E88A4A-8199-41DD-B9B8-B0786E01FA24@ajf.me> <9c22c99010ba92136bb66adb873d1335@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


On 21 Jul 2014, at 14:47, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> Everything I know about the PHP community, combined with the amazing =
level
> of interest that the recent PHPNG benchmarks garnered, tells me that =
it
> wrong.
> People would love to get it even if it was just the performance & =
memory
> footprint gains alone.  And we're not even talking about that - we'd =
still
> have ample time to put in additional features into it.

Yes, =93additional=94 features. Not big ones. That is my point of =
contention: if the only major engine-level thing we have time to add is =
phpng=92s performance improvements, I=92m not sure it=92s worthy of =
being PHP NEXT.

>>> This is the assumption we should take IMHO, and only branch 5.7 (and
>>> more importantly, invest time in it) if it proves wrong.
>>=20
>> Branching 5.7 wouldn't be a big effort. Master is fairly stable, and =
if
> some RFCs
>> pass, we can merge them into 5.7. It also gives us a fallback. If PHP
> NEXT
>> doesn't happen next year (and I expect that it won't), we'll still =
have
> 5.7.
>=20
> I can live with that, as long as we treat 5.7 as a secondary project =
where
> we backport stuff rom master, and as long as it's clear to everyone =
that
> it may be (or IMHO may very well be) throw-away code that we'll never
> actually use.  Personally I think it makes more sense to focus on =
getting
> .NEXT out the door quickly so that we don't have to get into the =
headache
> of working on two active trees, though.  I'd like to see what others =
are
> thinking=85

Well, I don=92t think that, realistically, introducing PHP NEXT will =
immediately kill the 5.x line. We should have at least one more release =
after NEXT comes out. That release will probably be 5.7, and who knows, =
perhaps it might actually come out *after* NEXT.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/