Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79084
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2FCFF6B7-53FB-4D56-9296-371374F79C78@zend.com>
References: <3d131946349b68aa2ae26dcfeaa5197a@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH6HTTcA+Y-UWi_8kZjtMSKRp3sRmRzS3VWdMYwSXgKeJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2FCFF6B7-53FB-4D56-9296-371374F79C78@zend.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:36:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH65RsdW6wgTiC77Hb-1_wFXn4TyqJy_3zVJnediY+dUqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c16326c2495705086036e9
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] PHP 7.0 timeline
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a11c16326c2495705086036e9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

>
> On 21 =D7=91=D7=A0=D7=95=D7=91=D7=B3 2014, at 13:06, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3=
l@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>> move
>> this to a vote, it=E2=80=99s finally happening:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline#vote
>>
>>
>>
>> Cast your vote!
>>
>>
>>
>> Zeev
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> could you update the timeline to mention when do you want to start the
> alpha and beta cycle?
>
>
> for 5.6 the start of the alpha cycle indicated that we don't accept new
> proposals, and the start of the beta cycle indicated that we won't accept
> new features even if the RFC was already proposed or even accepted (but t=
he
> patch wasn't finished or merged in time).
> you do mention the RC cycle as point 3, and my guess is that point 2,
> could be the beta cycle because your definition ("Finalize implementation=
 &
> testing of new features") matches what we do with betas, but if that
> assumption is correct, then your RFC is missing a target date for the sta=
rt
> 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, as we're not feature complete.
>

ok


>
> The proposal does suggest to go directly to an RC cycle afterwards, but i=
t
> could read beta / RC too.  The difference between betas and RCs is
> typically very small, they're both feature complete and only imply
> different levels of quality.  Personally I don't think we need both.
>

In this case the 3 month period will be too short imo.
We release RCs/betas every two weeks, so 3 months would be about 6 release.
5.6.0 had 3 alpha, 4 beta and 4 rc before release.
5.5.0 had 6 alpha, 4 beta and 3 rc before release.
5.4.0 had 3 alpha, 2 beta and 8 rc before release.
5.3.0 had 3 alpha, 1 beta and 4 rc before release
5.2.0 had 6 rc before release.
5.1.0 had 6 rc before release.

based on that I would say that our average beta+rc release number is around
7, and sometimes the release for a beta/RC can be delayed, so I think that
having only 3 months for the beta+RC period is too optimistic, we should
make that into 4 months at least, we could either push out the ETA for GA
or move back the alpha period by a month.

sorry if this seems to be nitpicking, just trying to put my experiences
into use.

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a11c16326c2495705086036e9--