Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79755
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dddb5fcfcef14e9ba6d5033f2f18e0f7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8C1EFD82-CFE0-4D01-9231-2A1658B182A6@ajf.me>
	<CABBJUpfLCjWCgOUneN2O2M7qP2WBf8OgbVrdB-jm+Fn_dDJvVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4NrGBi-YpYz_pOgg=BBhymp5Y4Re9XOwnnY47BTiXA5Oxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<b110fda6282aaf482e7906fcccdb00ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH5SGuk1L+9y4FBYmdC8GP05UOFnw+iupTy+Av65AGJCnw@mail.gmail.com>
	<c4c3b84eb3b5c5e2451ee3c585fd95c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<EA391654-F731-4B45-9E45-EE780183EEE4@gmail.com>
	<CABRjmp__TD6PjNTiETgD-jSmLSE4cuj7AoOzQh+zmnp6XN5G=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH7gSeACtJ_YM3hughXqMpPLsTa=w=UPxbo1-6TYL5ZDig@mail.gmail.com>
	<dddb5fcfcef14e9ba6d5033f2f18e0f7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:59:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH46zMAJkonMo8raVkucpbsvH9Y_c=jdGJeyq+8VjcGfbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Florian Margaine <florian@margaine.com>, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd9058ee2f422050a5d50ad
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--047d7bd9058ee2f422050a5d50ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyra3l@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:53 PM
> > To: Florian Margaine
> > Cc: Rowan Collins; PHP Internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
> >
> > please be aware the not everybody agrees on the no new features rule, b=
ut
> > from as I can tell most people seem to agree that no new major features
> > should be included.
>
> That's true, but the only person I see actively campaigning for new
> features
> (major or otherwise) appears to be you, Ferenc :)
>

I was just pointing out, that we don't have a consensus on this decision.
If I'm the minority with my opinion I will accept it, I just wanted to make
sure that this kind of the discussion is not wrongly
summarized/misrepresented. I do remember seeing other people who liked the
idea of having small self-contained features, and from the top of my head I
could only name you who was on the side of the fence that there should be
no new features at all, even in 5.6, and everybody should just work on 7.0.


>
> It's *clearly* not in the scope of the RFC that Andrea put on the table -
> that's consistent with the feedbacks of several different people on the
> list.  We'd need a different or heavily amended RFC in order to allow it.
>

I think that it is sometimes better to first have a discussion before
trying to put out competing RFCs if you think that there are some
points/aspects which you seem to not agree on. (Usually this is the point
of the Under Discussion status of the RFCs).


>
> For the record, I'm mostly indifferent to the current RFC (somwhat opposi=
ng
> it as detailed in a previous email), but will clearly oppose any RFC that
> suggests any sort of feature 5.7 release.  Most importantly, it will dela=
y
> the strategic 7.0 release, but also - slow migration down (less reasons t=
o
> move upwards to 7.0 if you have some of these features in 5.x).
>

could you clarify one thing for me?
from that sentence it seems that you aren't really against having small new
features (as those are already happened/happening in 5.6.x and you did not
mention that you have a problem with that) but you think that there would
be more/bigger features happening if there would be an 5.7 version?
do I understand you correctly?
If you have problems with small improvements happening anywhere but in 7.0,
I think we should have a vote on that, because we don't really have a clean
rule to prevent that from happening (or you can convince the RMs to veto
every feature on the current 5.x branches).
if you have problem with 5.7 growing in complexity/number of features I
think that wouldn't really be a problem, as for one we would have a more
formal process for approving the features what is currently happening
(people asking the RMs if they think this or that is okay and in which
branch should it go), plus I don't think that many people would really want
to implement a complex feature twice (once against 5.7 and once against
7.0) which will be available in both versions around the same time (maybe a
couple of months sooner in 5.7).
Personally I don't expect more development going into 5.6+5.7 than what is
currently happening in 5.6.
I think this PR/mail is a good example how would having a clear target for
small improvements help:
https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg71998.html

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--047d7bd9058ee2f422050a5d50ad--