# [RFC][vote] 5.3 EOL - Thread: https://externals.io/message/64926 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/64926 - Started by Pierre Joye on 2013-01-14T09:11:32+00:00 - Messages: 11 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #64926 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-14T09:11:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#64926 hi, I opened the voting phase for the 5.3 EOL RFC. I also changed the polls to reduce confusion between the announce and the actual EOL, to avoid equal results between many options. Thanks for your upcoming votes and let focus and 5.5+ asap :) Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #64927 — Laruence — 2013-01-14T09:16:46+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#64927 · In reply to: #64926 > hi, > > I opened the voting phase for the 5.3 EOL RFC. where is the voting page? :) thanks > > I also changed the polls to reduce confusion between the announce and > the actual EOL, to avoid equal results between many options. > > Thanks for your upcoming votes and let focus and 5.5+ asap :) > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org > > -- > > > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #64929 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-14T09:18:22+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#64929 · In reply to: #64926 Arg, sorry :) Here you go: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php53eol > hi, > > I opened the voting phase for the 5.3 EOL RFC. > > I also changed the polls to reduce confusion between the announce and > the actual EOL, to avoid equal results between many options. > > Thanks for your upcoming votes and let focus and 5.5+ asap :) > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #64930 — Adam Harvey — 2013-01-14T09:18:46+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#64930 · In reply to: #64927 > > > […] > where is the voting page? :) https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php53eol Adam --- ## #64932 — Peter Cowburn — 2013-01-14T13:12:27+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#64932 · In reply to: #64926 > > I opened the voting phase for the 5.3 EOL RFC. > Is there any reason why this RFC was not listed on the RFC listing page? I have added it to the "In voting phase" list, assuming you merely forgot to add it anywhere. --- ## #65059 — Christopher Jones — 2013-01-21T22:44:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#65059 · In reply to: #64929 > Arg, sorry :) > > Here you go: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php53eol Pierre, Can you review this RFC and the votes? The wording "5.5 final release" needs assessing. You probably meant "first 5.5 production release". If anyone interpreted it as it is actually written i.e. "terminal 5.5 release", then the vote needs to be re-run. Chris > > > > […] > > > -- christopher.jones@oracle.com http://twitter.com/ghrd Newly updated, free PHP & Oracle book: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/php/underground-php-oracle-manual-098250.html --- ## #65117 — Florian Anderiasch — 2013-01-23T17:37:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#65117 · In reply to: #65059 > Pierre, > > Can you review this RFC and the votes? The wording "5.5 final > release" needs assessing. You probably meant "first 5.5 production > release". If anyone interpreted it as it is actually written > i.e. "terminal 5.5 release", then the vote needs to be re-run. How do you plan to find out who would've taken it that way? Ask all who voted? Maybe it sounds more ambiguous for a native speaker, but I actually had to reread this mail to get your point. I've never heard anyone use "final" as "terminal", the "final" in the software development domain has always been the name for the version after the RCs, at least for me. Greetings, Florian --- ## #65139 — Christopher Jones — 2013-01-24T01:35:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#65139 · In reply to: #65117 > > > > […] > > How do you plan to find out who would've taken it that way? Ask all who > voted? Probably. I suggest being practical and getting a best-effort feel for it. Lack of responses to my email is one indicator that the the community doesn't have an issue with the RFC wording. > Maybe it sounds more ambiguous for a native speaker, but I actually had > to reread this mail to get your point. I've never heard anyone use > "final" as "terminal", I have. There is also a subtle distinction between the use of "final" in "final 5.5.0" and "final 5.5". > the "final" in the software development domain > has always been the name for the version after the RCs, at least for me. That's the way I took it for my vote. The next day I realized that non-native English speakers might possibly have thought otherwise. Chris -- christopher.jones@oracle.com http://twitter.com/ghrd Newly updated, free PHP & Oracle book: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/php/underground-php-oracle-manual-098250.html --- ## #65141 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-24T05:28:39+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#65141 · In reply to: #65139 Hi Chris, On Jan 24, 2013 2:35 AM, "Christopher Jones" wrote: > > > > > > […] > > > Probably. I suggest being practical and getting a best-effort feel for it. > Lack of responses to my email is one indicator that the the community > doesn't have an issue with the RFC wording. > > > > […] > > > I have. There is also a subtle distinction between the use of "final" in > "final 5.5.0" and "final 5.5". > > > > […] > > > That's the way I took it for my vote. The next day I realized that non-native > English speakers might possibly have thought otherwise. I asked many native speakers and all understood it as "when 5.5.0 stable release will be announced". Cheers, Pierre --- ## #65142 — Stas Malyshev — 2013-01-24T05:56:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#65142 · In reply to: #65141 Hi! > I asked many native speakers and all understood it as "when 5.5.0 stable > release will be announced". I didn't even think it may mean anything else until I've read this thread. I don't think any significant number of voters understood it this way, it's sound kind of weird - why would we want to keep releasing 5.3 a year after we stopped releasing 5.5? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #65143 — Kris Craig — 2013-01-24T08:29:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/64926#65143 · In reply to: #65142 On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > I didn't even think it may mean anything else until I've read this > thread. I don't think any significant number of voters understood it > this way, it's sound kind of weird - why would we want to keep releasing > 5.3 a year after we stopped releasing 5.5? > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 Long answer: The terms "final" and "terminal" tend to be very loosely defined in the general sense. You have to look at it in the context of a given project to see how they're using each. Context isn't unique to English, of course. This particular question seems to break down into two parts: 1. In the case of PHP core, "final" has always (as far as I'm aware, at least) referred to the production release immediately following the release candidates. It does not in any way imply that it will be the last (or "terminal") release for its parent increment. For example, "5.3.3 final" means that it's the production release of 5.3.3; it does not mean that it's the last increment of 5.3. 2. When a new minor increment is released (i.e. [major].[minor].[build]), we tend to leave off the ".0" at the end on this project. Therefore, when somebody refers to "5.5 final", what they're really saying is "5.5.0 final", which refers to the production release of 5.5.0. This doesn't cause any confusion because we're consistent on this; i.e. if we were doing something like "5.2" followed immediately by "5.3.0" then "5.3.1", that would pose a problem. But since "[major].[minor]" on this project always refers to "[major].[minor].0", it's not an issue. In other words, what we're saying is it's the final (i.e. production/post-RC) release of 5.5.0, not 5.5. Our production releases are tethered to the build increment, not minor. As I understand it, "final" refers to an increment corresponding to an actual release while "terminal" refers to an increment that merely serves as the parent of releases but is not a release in and of itself. Make sense? Therefore, if we say "5.5 final", we're referring to the production release of 5.5.0. If we say "5.5 terminal", we're referring to the last build increment release of 5.5 (for example, if 5.5.12 was the last build of 5.5, then "5.5 terminal" would refer to it while "5.5 final" would still refer to 5.5.0). Short answer: The terminology context is well enough established here that nobody should have been confused as to this RFC's intent. So long as the RFC's wording conforms to these known standards, which I believe this one does, then it's the responsibility of the person voting on it to make sure they know what they mean before casting their vote. --Kris