hi,
A page has been created today to document the migration to phpng (for
those willing to do it before the rfc got accepted :):
https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading
It would be nice to keep adding things not listed there as we found
them. That will be amazingly helpful to port existing codes and write
the final migration guide.
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
A page has been created today to document the migration to phpng (for
those willing to do it before the rfc got accepted :):https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading
It would be nice to keep adding things not listed there as we found
them. That will be amazingly helpful to port existing codes and write
the final migration guide.
With all these phpng- pages, maybe there should be a /phpng/ namespace? ;)
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
A page has been created today to document the migration to phpng (for
those willing to do it before the rfc got accepted :):https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading
It would be nice to keep adding things not listed there as we found
them. That will be amazingly helpful to port existing codes and write
the final migration guide.With all these phpng- pages, maybe there should be a /phpng/ namespace? ;)
yes, or actually a /rfc/phpng*
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
Hi!
yes, or actually a /rfc/phpng*
phpng is not an RFC though. Decision about merging phpng and naming it
PHP6 or whatever may be an RFC, but technical details about it are just
docs.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
Hi!
yes, or actually a /rfc/phpng*
phpng is not an RFC though. Decision about merging phpng and naming it
PHP6 or whatever may be an RFC, but technical details about it are just
docs.
I disagree. These changes are perfectly valid as rfc and should be proposed
as any other changes.
It can be one of the new things for 6, maybe the 1st one to begin with.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
Hi!
I disagree. These changes are perfectly valid as rfc and should be
proposed as any other changes.
By this principle, everything in PHP introduced since we have the wiki
should live under rfc namespace, since it was a change which has to be
proposed as an RFC. I think such usage of rfc namespace makes it useless
as it would mix pages pertaining to the rfc process as such (proposing
the change, discussing it, etc.) with pages used to document various things.
It can be one of the new things for 6, maybe the 1st one to begin with.
That's why we need a namespace for new things for 6. And phpng is as
good name as any :)
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
Hi!
I disagree. These changes are perfectly valid as rfc and should be
proposed as any other changes.By this principle, everything in PHP introduced since we have the wiki
should live under rfc namespace, since it was a change which has to be
proposed as an RFC. I think such usage of rfc namespace makes it useless
as it would mix pages pertaining to the rfc process as such (proposing
the change, discussing it, etc.) with pages used to document various things.
Just to rephrase in a way we all understand and agree (hopefully):
* If this change is added it requires an RFC, under rfc/
* Now is too early for an RFC on such a complex topic
* The whole set of documentation is too much for an RFC
* This basic documentation should be in a namespace (phpng/ or
maybe internals/phpng/)
* The RFC can quote and link that documentation once it is being
proposed
* Lateron this should end up in the PHP docs
johannes