Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79097
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.49 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: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 14:20:20 +1100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7T-jOC=hxYw-DcaBajjba8bsrm4ntRUjYoSgALh2jbZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] PHP 7.0 timeline
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21 =D7=91=D7=A0=D7=95=D7=91=D7=B3 2014, at 13:06, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra=
3l@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 a=
lpha 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 n=
ew features 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, co=
uld be the beta cycle because your definition ("Finalize implementation & t=
esting of new features") matches what we do with betas, but if that assumpt=
ion is 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 tha=
t there could be no new RFCs targetting PHP7 after that date.
>
> I think the "finalize implementation" stage corresponds to our alpha stag=
e, as we're not feature complete.
>
> 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 typica=
lly very small, they're both feature complete and only imply different leve=
ls of quality.  Personally I don't think we need both.

This is not the case. Beta means beta status but may be not features
complete (as patch may have not made it yet). RCs on the other hand
are. RC means no more addition and focus only on fixing things.

This RFC is incomplete and unrealistic, besides not taking into
account other opinions. It should go back to discussions and solve the
obvious issues before even thinking about voting on it.

Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org