# PHP 5.5 or 6.0 - Thread: https://externals.io/message/17668 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/17668 - Started by Derick Rethans on 2005-08-09T08:41:07+00:00 - Messages: 18 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · RFCs at https://externals.io/rfc.md · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #17668 — Derick Rethans — 2005-08-09T08:41:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17668 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 --- ## #17671 — Sebastian Bergmann — 2005-08-09T09:06:12+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17671 · In reply to: #17668 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 --- ## #17670 — Jani Taskinen — 2005-08-09T09:06:20+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17670 · In reply to: #17668 > 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 --- ## #17672 — dz@bitxtender.com — 2005-08-09T09:46:19+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17672 · In reply to: #17668 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 6.0 > > 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 --- ## #17677 — Pierre-Alain Joye — 2005-08-09T10:04:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17677 · In reply to: #17668 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 --- ## #17685 — Derick Rethans — 2005-08-09T10:47:50+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17685 · In reply to: #17677 > 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 --- ## #17686 — Pierre-Alain Joye — 2005-08-09T10:52:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17686 · In reply to: #17685 On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:47:50 +0200 (CEST) derick@php.net (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. 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 --- ## #17688 — Derick Rethans — 2005-08-09T11:02:47+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17688 · In reply to: #17686 > On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:47:50 +0200 (CEST) > derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote: > > > […] > > 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 --- ## #17689 — Pierre-Alain Joye — 2005-08-09T11:16:00+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17689 · In reply to: #17688 On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:02:47 +0200 (CEST) Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > […] > > 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 --- ## #17690 — Derick Rethans — 2005-08-09T11:21:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17690 · In reply to: #17689 > > […] > > 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 --- ## #17697 — Ilia Alshanetsky — 2005-08-09T14:07:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17697 · In reply to: #17685 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 --- ## #17712 — Sara Golemon — 2005-08-09T17:43:03+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17712 · In reply to: #17668 > 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 --- ## #17711 — Wez Furlong — 2005-08-09T18:10:23+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17711 · In reply to: #17686 > 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. --- ## #17717 — Lukas Smith — 2005-08-09T19:18:06+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17717 · In reply to: #17711 Wez Furlong wrote: > > > > […] > > > 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 --- ## #17719 — Andi Gutmans — 2005-08-09T19:25:27+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17719 · In reply to: #17668 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 --- ## #17727 — Pierre-Alain Joye — 2005-08-09T19:41:41+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17727 · In reply to: #17719 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 --- ## #17734 — Andi Gutmans — 2005-08-09T19:50:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17734 · In reply to: #17719 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: > > > […] > >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 --- ## #17797 — Zeev Suraski — 2005-08-10T15:16:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/17668#17797 · In reply to: #17668 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