Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79104 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 22234 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2014 00:01:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Nov 2014 00:01:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=kris.craig@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=kris.craig@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.41 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: kris.craig@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.41 mail-oi0-f41.google.com Received: from [209.85.218.41] ([209.85.218.41:58955] helo=mail-oi0-f41.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 33/70-15034-1C321745 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:01:06 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f41.google.com with SMTP id a3so5249037oib.14 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:01:03 -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=fZvglYogqQQ6wlC89LVVpaZxEjJ7vV2EmkWiaQWe47Y=; b=w4RfkOaAKei8kBd65Vp99QXqwrqBEep41DFrYs8R/QeBPVb9z6SzpmViVf7hbMlerk ygKai3/ykJgIHx5nnceFl/K7j1SvADlnN18sIvwOk2izYZ5YKpIk9ZeBm28pfE+iX3a6 5wh/z58n3aqEagr3ntU3VHR3g0kwMnIl0yY3W+ufqkgbtpEBq70gdrLkZv9T2Ylrx8/y mNhte5b0QlEXQYo+78LXzDH1uYPwHaXNeoCVFBCwOFyLWo/gwLsbL71xvUhQKZ8eP2Js H7T0sBFJdXLza9J4TwDmKiBoMXCCAdZ0Iz1A2K5epv5GCQIAxQGfQdnD0IRAyuo0Jq/M E3Lw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.89.161 with SMTP id bp1mr7908615obb.19.1416700863231; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.227.133 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:01:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54705FFB.8040200@lsces.co.uk> References: <3d131946349b68aa2ae26dcfeaa5197a@mail.gmail.com> <2FCFF6B7-53FB-4D56-9296-371374F79C78@zend.com> <54705FFB.8040200@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:01:03 -0800 Message-ID: To: Lester Caine Cc: PHP internals list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0e02b4bb0205087b5f71 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] PHP 7.0 timeline From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig) --089e013d0e02b4bb0205087b5f71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > On 22/11/14 09:14, Pierre Joye wrote: > > 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. > > When a customer tells me I have to give him a completion date I have a > stock answer. 'When you sign off on the specification'. The current > problem is that we have no idea just what form PHP7 is going to take, > and no idea just how much code will need to be reworked as a result. > > There is a lot of parallel developments going on all with different > goals and in my book all at odds with a cohesive roadmap? Many people > want their pet features included ASAP but as yet there is no agreement > even on what PHP7 will be? Until there are a set of goals any planning > on time is irrelevant. > > It IS all chicken and egg since one can't know now just how long it will > take to do some of the things being discussed, and it may be that it's > impossible to achieve a preferred goal in a reasonable time frame? THAT > is basically what happened with PHP6? The selections made for the goal > turned out to be the wrong ones but it took time for people to give in > ad scrap that roadmap. > > From a user point of view I'd rather know what will NOT be part of PHP7 > early, and anything being removed will be tagged as deprecated in PHP5.7 > ... I don't see any way forward without a bridging build to help > identify code that needs work, and I would like to make a case for NOT > loading PHP7 down with compatibility switches like e_strict! Lets keep > the compatibility aspect to PHP5.7 and those of us who don't have time > to 'upgrade' will continue to run PHP5 for another 10+ years. PHP7 > should be - hopefully - a single clean interface with in my book UTF8 > capability as a bare minimum. But I don't think we need Python3 type > breaks to achieve this since much of the core has already had UTF8 > sneaked in via the back door. I'm thinking more like a C -> C++ break > where the core procedural framework still works, but people can add OO > namespaces on top which do not have to be 'required'. I just don't see > how the 'everything must be exceptions' camp can be accommodated with > procedural error handling? > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > ----------------------------- > Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact > L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk > EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ > Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk > Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > A valid point. Perhaps, before we decide on a timeline for release, we should first decide on a timeline for acceptance of new features/etc. We should have a cut-off date for RFCs targetted for PHP 7. After that date has passed, we gather up all the stuff slated for 7.0 and figure out how long it will take. That will yield the timeline we're looking for. Voting on a release timeline before then just invites problems and confusion down the line and would probably force us to ultimately come up with a revised timeline later on, anyway. It would be better to do this by the book and establish a scope cut-off before drafting any timeline for release. Based on this, as well as flaws in the RFC itself, I'm going to have to vote no. Not because I don't support a PHP 7 release timeline, but because I don't think this RFC at this time is a responsible way to go about doing it. --Kris --089e013d0e02b4bb0205087b5f71--