Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79620
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cca63350a40e7c9a9d7fbca3f836ac31@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMUwpuRZRb3z+gkU1ejctvfHGc_K=zWxSYmQn=TxVX9zS+fD0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<30315309863fc1883f187e2f6777d081@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4Npp+JpKvyJ5L75_w9rFipwdbtRNmBX4sdtT8jUo2G2bew@mail.gmail.com>
	<cca63350a40e7c9a9d7fbca3f836ac31@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 19:17:58 +1100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5JgqScXNOgD004ihC383vqLJ9CsZUyokJMbBddtDeCFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net>, 
	Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf1617eb33b50050a14a520
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] On the road to PHP 5.7 , or not ?
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--047d7bf1617eb33b50050a14a520
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Dec 13, 2014 2:19 PM, "Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> Levi, Andrea, Adam, and others that suggested we can do 5.7 in parallel
> while sticking to the 7.0 timeline:
>
> 1.  I was replying to Julien.  Julien said in at least 3 different places
in
> his email that if we do 5.7, we'll clearly not be doing 7.0 in 2015 and it
> will clearly mean delaying 7.0 by a year.  If you disagree, you should be
> replying to and discussing with him, not me.

This is a public mailing list, for open discussions. You replied to
arguments, so we do. It brings pros and cons  to a debate you delibatery
killed with your incomplete rfc, breaking rules again while being at it.

>  Perhaps Julien and you have
> different ideas about what 5.7 is;  Even though it's not explicitly
> mentioned in his email, it certainly sounds that in his mind, 5.7 is just
as
> much of a release as 5.6 or 5.5 were.

Not necessarily and this is what we are discussing here.

> 3.  Last (and probably least) - a 5.7 that breaks compatibility is
> inconsistent with our version strategy, that suggests 5.7 should be fully
> compatible with 5.6.

It won't if we do it right.

--047d7bf1617eb33b50050a14a520--