Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79083
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-D27113A1-0994-4557-9B90-4C49283962CD
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH6HTTcA+Y-UWi_8kZjtMSKRp3sRmRzS3VWdMYwSXgKeJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:18:04 +0200
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <2FCFF6B7-53FB-4D56-9296-371374F79C78@zend.com>
References: <3d131946349b68aa2ae26dcfeaa5197a@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-PCH6HTTcA+Y-UWi_8kZjtMSKRp3sRmRzS3VWdMYwSXgKeJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] PHP 7.0 timeline
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

--Apple-Mail-D27113A1-0994-4557-9B90-4C49283962CD
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


> On 21 =D7=91=D7=A0=D7=95=D7=91=D7=B3 2014, at 13:06, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l=
@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> After some Twitter hints that I should get my act together and finally mo=
ve
>> this to a vote, it=E2=80=99s finally happening:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline#vote
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Cast your vote!
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Zeev
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> could you update the timeline to mention when do you want to start the alp=
ha and beta cycle?

> for 5.6 the start of the alpha cycle indicated that we don't accept new pr=
oposals, and the start of the beta cycle indicated that we won't accept new f=
eatures even if the RFC was already proposed or even accepted (but the patch=
 wasn't finished or merged in time).
> you do mention the RC cycle as point 3, and my guess is that point 2, coul=
d be the beta cycle because your definition ("Finalize implementation & test=
ing of new features") matches what we do with betas, but if that assumption i=
s correct, then your RFC is missing a target date for the start of the alpha=
 cycle, and that is important to know if we want to keep the rule that there=
 could be no new RFCs targetting PHP7 after that date.

I think the "finalize implementation" stage corresponds to our alpha stage, a=
s we're not feature complete.

The proposal does suggest to go directly to an RC cycle afterwards, but it c=
ould read beta / RC too.  The difference between betas and RCs is typically v=
ery small, they're both feature complete and only imply different levels of q=
uality.  Personally I don't think we need both.

Zeev=

--Apple-Mail-D27113A1-0994-4557-9B90-4C49283962CD--