Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79670
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
References: <CAMUwpuRZRb3z+gkU1ejctvfHGc_K=zWxSYmQn=TxVX9zS+fD0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1412121433000.4080@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CAH-PCH4eHK4AuKvXTzBFfWbOaGBUbYT80+1FyVy4Rc9DMVyRyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1412151649080.4080@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <CADajX4DZx=sJ-EFnOkSo9EUDiDHwtQ6xaXHabwUsoZsnX-uavg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADajX4DZx=sJ-EFnOkSo9EUDiDHwtQ6xaXHabwUsoZsnX-uavg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJyn7ksIjUSLHuWzpRlMyebBfiu5gGfhrP8AnsgPPUBx8wYUQMUX6U9mwRIr8A=
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:45:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4385b3d86ee971aa0f008cc3fcc2e080@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] On the road to PHP 5.7 , or not ?
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: adam@adamharvey.name [mailto:adam@adamharvey.name] On
> Behalf Of Adam Harvey
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:12 PM
> To: Derick Rethans
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On the road to PHP 5.7 , or not ?
>
> On 15 December 2014 at 08:51, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
> > Yes, I disagree. It's a time thing. Let's all work on one thing
> > instead of *two*. Clearly you must see that there is not enough
> > bandwidth? It will also prevent people from "oh we can get this into
> > 5.7"
> nonsense.
> > It's not helpful, and it *is* fragmenting development.
>
> I'm just as cognisant of our time constraints as you are, but I still
> think this
> can work if there's a clear, written expectation (say via
> RFC) that 5.7 is for migration related changes only, and should not
> include
> new feature work. If we can keep this as "5.6 + some deprecation
> warnings",
> I believe that can reduce the QA/development load enough to make
> delivering it and 7.0 possible next year.

5.6 + deprecation warnings might be something we can even consider for the
5.6.x tree, as we get closer to release 7.0.  I think if we do that, it
becomes more interesting since the likelihood of people upgrading to such a
version go higher (psychologically, moving to 5.7 is a much bigger deal than
upgrading from 5.6.10 to 5.6.11).

Zeev