Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else than 5.1
in order to have different version numbers. Although the name PHP 5.5
was mentioned before, I do think we should call it PHP 6.0. As the
Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going with PHP 6.0 also
allows us to be a little less strict with breaking BC in the cases where
that might be useful for the Unicode support.
I took the freedom to commit this change to CVS, as I needed already
different version numbers for the different versions of PHP that I
install locally. If discussion results that we need to rename it to
something else, that's ofcourse perfectly fine.
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
Derick Rethans schrieb:
I do think we should call it PHP 6.0
+1
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else than 5.1
in order to have different version numbers. Although the name PHP 5.5
was mentioned before, I do think we should call it PHP 6.0. As the
Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going with PHP 6.0 also
allows us to be a little less strict with breaking BC in the cases where
that might be useful for the Unicode support.
+1 and can we now also drop PHP_5_0 branch? :)
--Jani
6.0 if the Namespaces patch makes it in, 5.5 with Unicode only? ;)
- David
-----Original Message-----
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:derick@php.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:41 AM
To: PHP Developers Mailing List
Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.5 or 6.0Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else than 5.1
in order to have different version numbers. Although the name PHP 5.5
was mentioned before, I do think we should call it PHP 6.0. As the
Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going with PHP 6.0 also
allows us to be a little less strict with breaking BC in the cases where
that might be useful for the Unicode support.I took the freedom to commit this change to CVS, as I needed already
different version numbers for the different versions of PHP that I
install locally. If discussion results that we need to rename it to
something else, that's ofcourse perfectly fine.regards,
Derick--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:41:07 +0200 (CEST)
derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:
Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else
than 5.1 in order to have different version numbers. Although the
name PHP 5.5 was mentioned before, I do think we should call it
PHP 6.0. As the Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going
with PHP 6.0 also allows us to be a little less strict with
breaking BC in the cases where that might be useful for the
Unicode support.I took the freedom to commit this change to CVS, as I needed
already different version numbers for the different versions of
PHP that I install locally. If discussion results that we need to
rename it to something else, that's ofcourse perfectly fine.
I have no special oppinions on php 5.5 or 6.0.
But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without unicode,
namespace), and 6.0.
I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we want
in or not. So I may waste less time than before.
--Pierre
But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without unicode,
namespace), and 6.0.I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we want
in or not. So I may waste less time than before.
I see it as:
4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:47:50 +0200 (CEST)
derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:
But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without
unicode, namespace), and 6.0.I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we
want in or not. So I may waste less time than before.I see it as:
4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.
That sounds basically good to me.
My small thoughts:
5.1.x - bug fixes only
5.x - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
xmlwriter)
6.0 - to define, for now we have two candidates,
unicode for sure, namespace to be discussed/approved/
whatever
Regards,
--Pierre
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:47:50 +0200 (CEST)
derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without
unicode, namespace), and 6.0.I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we
want in or not. So I may waste less time than before.I see it as:
4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.That sounds basically good to me.
My small thoughts:
5.1.x - bug fixes only
5.x - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
xmlwriter)
I don't think we should be going with another 5.x release as we've
plenty of stuff to do for 6.0, gd updates/merges should go to 5.1.x too.
If we want to include xmlwriter at all in the default distribution is
another discussion. (So that should go to another thread IMO).
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:02:47 +0200 (CEST)
Derick Rethans derick@php.net wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:47:50 +0200 (CEST)
derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without
unicode, namespace), and 6.0.I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we
want in or not. So I may waste less time than before.I see it as:
4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.That sounds basically good to me.
My small thoughts:
5.1.x - bug fixes only
5.x - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
xmlwriter)I don't think we should be going with another 5.x release as
we've plenty of stuff to do for 6.0, gd updates/merges should go
to 5.1.x too.
I'm not sure that a merge fits in 5.1.x, the amount of changes are
relatively big and are far away from bug fixes.
If we want to include xmlwriter at all in the
default distribution is another discussion. (So that should go to
another thread IMO).
The discussion is already done and we agreed. It did not make it in
5.1 for various reasons. I only stated two of my todos here.
Regards,
--Pierre
If we want to include xmlwriter at all in the
default distribution is another discussion. (So that should go to
another thread IMO).The discussion is already done and we agreed. It did not make it in
5.1 for various reasons. I only stated two of my todos here.
I'd like to see some thread on that, as I definitely never saw anything
like that here.
Derick
5.x - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
xmlwriter)
This is what PECL is for. We're trying to move stuff out of the core
so that these kinds of updates are easier for everyone to work on and
use.
--Wez.
Wez Furlong wrote:
5.x - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
xmlwriter)This is what PECL is for. We're trying to move stuff out of the core
so that these kinds of updates are easier for everyone to work on and
use.
As a matter of fact why dont we take the chance of a new major version
to take a novel approach.
Lets decide what PHP should have by default, start off with an empty
list of extensions and include all the necessary extensions from PECL
that fulfill these needs (and put anything missing on the todo list for
6.1).
regards,
Lukas
Derick Rethans wrote:
I see it as:
4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.
This breakdown looks good, although it'd be nice to quantify just what
kind of "smaller additions" are acceptable for 5.1 branch.
Ilia
Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else than 5.1
in order to have different version numbers. Although the name PHP 5.5
was mentioned before, I do think we should call it PHP 6.0. As the
Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going with PHP 6.0 also
allows us to be a little less strict with breaking BC in the cases where
that might be useful for the Unicode support.
+1 for 6.0
I think Unicode warrants a major version. I'd go with PHP 6 and aim to
release it before Perl 6 :)
From judging by a Perl 6 talk we attended at OSCON, that might actually be
a realistic goal.
Andi
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:25:27 -0700
andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans) wrote:
I think Unicode warrants a major version. I'd go with PHP 6 and
aim to release it before Perl 6 :)
From judging by a Perl 6 talk we attended at OSCON, that might
actually be a realistic goal.
No rush please... Better after and better than before and half
backed :-D
--Pierre
At 09:41 PM 8/9/2005 +0200, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:25:27 -0700
andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans) wrote:I think Unicode warrants a major version. I'd go with PHP 6 and
aim to release it before Perl 6 :)
From judging by a Perl 6 talk we attended at OSCON, that might
actually be a realistic goal.No rush please... Better after and better than before and half
backed :-D
Well I'd like Unicode support out there as quickly as possible. That should
be our main mission in my opinion (biggest bang for the buck). That said,
obviously it shouldn't go out before it's ready, and there's still a lot of
work and testing to be done...
But anyway, it's too early to discuss :)
Andi
I agree, the Unicode-enabled version of PHP should definitely be 6.0.
Zeev
At 11:41 09/08/2005, Derick Rethans wrote:
Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else than 5.1
in order to have different version numbers. Although the name PHP 5.5
was mentioned before, I do think we should call it PHP 6.0. As the
Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going with PHP 6.0 also
allows us to be a little less strict with breaking BC in the cases where
that might be useful for the Unicode support.I took the freedom to commit this change to CVS, as I needed already
different version numbers for the different versions of PHP that I
install locally. If discussion results that we need to rename it to
something else, that's ofcourse perfectly fine.regards,
Derick--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org