Per the timetable at https://wiki.php.net/todo/php80 , the PHP-8.0 branch
will be cut in FOUR WEEKS on Aug 4th just prior to the release of
php-8.0.0beta1 on Aug 6th.
Please note that August 4th marks FEATURE FREEZE for 8.0.
All RFCs currently in discussion targeting 8.0 should plan to begin voting
in the next 2 weeks in order to have sufficient time to complete prior to
the August 4th deadline and have their initial implementations merged
before the branch is cut.
All RFCs not yet in discussion... Well, tick tock, right?
-Sara
Per the timetable at https://wiki.php.net/todo/php80 , the PHP-8.0 branch
will be cut in FOUR WEEKS on Aug 4th just prior to the release of
php-8.0.0beta1 on Aug 6th.
Please note that August 4th marks FEATURE FREEZE for 8.0.All RFCs currently in discussion targeting 8.0 should plan to begin voting
in the next 2 weeks in order to have sufficient time to complete prior to
the August 4th deadline and have their initial implementations merged
before the branch is cut.
All RFCs not yet in discussion... Well, tick tock, right?-Sara
Just so people aren't surprised, I plan to start landing implementations
for RFCs that are likely to be accepted in advance of the actual vote
closure, as we have many RFC votes ending close to feature freeze. Of
course, if something ends up not passing, it will be reverted.
Nikita
Just so people aren't surprised, I plan to start landing implementations
for RFCs that are likely to be accepted in advance of the actual vote
closure, as we have many RFC votes ending close to feature freeze. Of
course, if something ends up not passing, it will be reverted.Sounds 100% reasonable, the two you have in voting phase are both looking
pretty solid. I'd rather have the hazard of a last-minute revert than a
last-minute merge.
-Sara
Just so people aren't surprised, I plan to start landing implementations
for RFCs that are likely to be accepted in advance of the actual vote
closure, as we have many RFC votes ending close to feature freeze. Of
course, if something ends up not passing, it will be reverted.Sounds 100% reasonable, the two you have in voting phase are both looking
pretty solid. I'd rather have the hazard of a last-minute revert than a
last-minute merge.
the namespace token one is also a requirement for the attribute syntax @@
patch, which also requires another review cycle afterwards, so this way
it'll be a little less time pressed for that one.
-Sara