Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79102
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c3ec0064df9735f78d372f431deb4ccc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3d131946349b68aa2ae26dcfeaa5197a@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH6HTTcA+Y-UWi_8kZjtMSKRp3sRmRzS3VWdMYwSXgKeJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2FCFF6B7-53FB-4D56-9296-371374F79C78@zend.com>
	<CAH-PCH65RsdW6wgTiC77Hb-1_wFXn4TyqJy_3zVJnediY+dUqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3ec0064df9735f78d372f431deb4ccc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 20:14:33 +1100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5RBPT6PypTUNPw2tnyp3-kg8zCXZHdDyhRFntbQMVS4A@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 6:56 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> Ferenc, all,
>
>
>
> The RFC has provisions for making the 3rd and 4th milestones move as need=
ed:
>
>
>
> =E2=80=9CIt's worth noting that the 3rd and 4th milestones will be qualit=
y
> dependent. If we have evidence that suggests that PHP 7 isn't sufficientl=
y
> mature to go into the RC stage in June, or GA in October - we should of
> course adjust the timeline accordingly, and not push out a half-baked
> release. However, the goal would be to stick as much as possible to the
> deadline of new going-into-7.0 RFCs, and strive to follow the timelines f=
or
> the 2nd and 3rd milestones as much as possible, to ensure an October 2015
> release of PHP 7.0.=E2=80=9D
>
>
>
> This language attempts to balance the motivation to get PHP 7.0 out to
> market as soon as possible, with the unwillingness to compromise on
> quality.  If we end up having to have 4 months of betas/RCs instead of 3 =
=E2=80=93
> then we will=E2=80=A6
>
>
>
> Zeev
>
>
>
>
>
> based on that I would say that our average beta+rc release number is arou=
nd
> 7, and sometimes the release for a beta/RC can be delayed, so I think tha=
t
> 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.

Which is very valuable and pretty matches our experiences for all
releases since 5.3 but 5.4.0 (only in time).

That's why I strongly suggest to make a more realistic time plan and
stick to it. Specific dates can or should be define later but the
period (mid october f.e.) should be defined now. One week more when it
is about fixing one last critical bug for an existing feature is
perfectly OK, 1 month to actually finish a new feature may not be
good, at all.


Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org