Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75871 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 30463 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2014 16:25:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jul 2014 16:25:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rowan.collins@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rowan.collins@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rowan.collins@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.82.41 mail-wg0-f41.google.com Received: from [74.125.82.41] ([74.125.82.41:55566] helo=mail-wg0-f41.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C1/09-21666-B609EC35 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:25:16 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id z12so8310494wgg.0 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7ny+NlkhMorNi4kyaTv0m2WzpJFHC8URMSqR1IpReE4=; b=u+ybe0e4NOOlG+kgYnnITiD/J4IYDbGGI4R7UvUvMMw3yjBSGe1RhdFEqNKek1o0LA KxlXXAP1VEzlUCBGdB12djb+WXVak/BA6wqR9XFQqUXex8kSYDO6vXriEiN0HkuRPePX gz+afw4iwIVe9H1JzNb4M5G8eJG9G71nPoV4INoHttEW9lpDhUVlq3se25bmK4gks+sT IAail4FcGKU1qaidZYGLXcdwOjPp0/6649RQ54WKn9qhIovDxo/OgHvmJ1P0ZywK5CR1 Ip8fHqL2udJEAHPuMF/DBPXf4B31FE57QE0BBCiGt0Q5ajDfRTqASzFp+vD/flP2aeCa 3Qkw== X-Received: by 10.180.84.7 with SMTP id u7mr16065477wiy.27.1406046312290; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.177] ([62.189.198.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id da9sm4300591wib.5.2014.07.22.09.25.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53CE8FC6.3070107@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:22:30 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; 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> <53CE66D4.2060103@gmail.com> <76fe76cab9ff261f8ef8950f79fb6740@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <76fe76cab9ff261f8ef8950f79fb6740@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins) Zeev Suraski wrote (on 22/07/2014): > I think the way it's laid out right now makes sense. Let's not try to > sweep this under the carpet - we two mutually exclusive options and we > need to decide between them. How is laying out the arguments more clearly "sweeping it under the carpet"? The *outcomes* may be mutually exclusive, but the *discussion* is about various issues, and I don't think the current RFC does a good job of summarising those. Note that I'm not asking for it to be expanded; in fact, I think it should be shorter, and stick to listing the key points - anyone wanting the details of particular people's views can check out the mailing list archives.