Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79671
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4385b3d86ee971aa0f008cc3fcc2e080@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<4385b3d86ee971aa0f008cc3fcc2e080@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:08:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH5vUoaCYjs95viPKVgfHM6b+KB1=igsvt+SZ=4+WjKjbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044287c0666b6a050a46ce3e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On the road to PHP 5.7 , or not ?
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--f46d044287c0666b6a050a46ce3e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> > -----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 th=
e
> 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).




there are two advantages for having 5.7 and having those deprecated
messages in 5.7:
1, if we introduce the deprecated message in 5.6.x, some people will miss
it (for example debian jessie has 5.6.2)
2, would allow us to stabilize 5.6 instead of keep adding stuff to it
continuously .



--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--f46d044287c0666b6a050a46ce3e--