Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79073 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89576 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2014 10:16:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Nov 2014 10:16:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=kris.craig@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=kris.craig@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.44 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: kris.craig@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.44 mail-oi0-f44.google.com Received: from [209.85.218.44] ([209.85.218.44:33455] helo=mail-oi0-f44.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E8/D8-32541-C011F645 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:16:44 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f44.google.com with SMTP id e131so3437381oig.17 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 02:16:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jbrDm3ctaSFUZl055EWHbyu841bNaO5ILg0jWUOHQUo=; b=Ctz4vsViOG49iCGu8SnxuovZiNgefk2mICR/ygAZYj78kZPF+QfL2XaIB7zy8aY4JL ZiTgEHuyQPZcNAmfIOojadadsScsgZ254228LHX2+sufIH4SnAC5gQHKgvJVn7PbOwfx ex/0l2TFuMIOael88a2vlW0mM0SZppcSf8OJjGVTTo9F+vRm8KcjV71lzqZ4uqpoUdDS yGDB8+HWZTsvc3ZgRlO65KpFFoMMr0SxHliU6sLnXI31CeiMnNU+DKQaBYaUI171WN7L XLRyWF9IwWBVtjIBYq1wDRSwNrl95jZgFNJKUULiVydNc9pP7CZ3EtRThxlrfgF+qQuv 4i3A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.52.193 with SMTP id v1mr2390559oeo.19.1416565002007; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 02:16:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.227.133 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 02:16:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <3d131946349b68aa2ae26dcfeaa5197a@mail.gmail.com> <1416557888.27517.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 02:16:41 -0800 Message-ID: To: Joe Watkins Cc: Zeev Suraski , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113306f6befd4905085bbdfb Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] PHP 7.0 timeline From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig) --001a113306f6befd4905085bbdfb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Specifically, this is the sentence that just seems completely out of place: "Arguably, while we should definitely take the opportunity to implement compatibility-breaking changes in 7.0, we also shouldn't turn it into a compatibility-breaking festival, as the more we break, the more likely it is users would delay upgrades, stay with old, insecure versions - or even consider other alternative options." Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with this opinion, but I don't think it belongs in this RFC as people's votes to approve the timeline could later be construed as endorsements of the BC philosophy you expressed, as well. That bothers me, probably enough to make me vote against this, so I really hope you remove it. I'd certainly have no objection to seeing that expanded into its own RFC, though. =3D) --Kris On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Kris Craig wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Joe Watkins > 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 fall= s > outside the scope of the timeline being voted on. Plus it's an issue tha= t > 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 cre= ep > that should be removed. > > Other than that one serious (but easily fixable) flaw, I think it's great= ! > > --Kris > > > --001a113306f6befd4905085bbdfb--