Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79072
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1416557888.27517.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <3d131946349b68aa2ae26dcfeaa5197a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1416557888.27517.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 02:12:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSxCh6qYVM2D13_D=Ykung6q=CWs6ZkZkXKPFHHmzr4Gbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ddb4a957f9605085bafcc
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] PHP 7.0 timeline
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--001a113ddb4a957f9605085bafcc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote=
:

> On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 10:07 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > After some Twitter hints that I should get my act together and finally
> move
> > this to a vote, it=E2=80=99s finally happening:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline#vote
> >
> >
> >
> > Cast your vote!
> >
> >
> >
> > Zeev
>
> Morning Zeev,
>
>         Proposed milestones column needs to change from mid October to
> November.
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Looks good, except I think you should remove the language expressing
opinion about the general merits of backwards compatibility, as that falls
outside the scope of the timeline being voted on.  Plus it's an issue that
really should be discussed and, if needed, voted on separately, not as a
single sentence stuffed into an RFC about a release timeline.  If I were to
vote yes on this timeline, I would not want my vote interpreted as an
endorsement of that position on BC.  I think it's overreach and scope creep
that should be removed.

Other than that one serious (but easily fixable) flaw, I think it's great!

--Kris

--001a113ddb4a957f9605085bafcc--