# Proposal to delay 7.0 timeline - Thread: https://externals.io/message/85371 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/85371 - Started by francois@php.net on 2015-03-21T15:52:28+00:00 - Messages: 9 - 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 --- ## #85371 — francois@php.net — 2015-03-21T15:52:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85371#85371 Hi, One month ago, I sent a message (https://marc.info/?l=php-internals &m=142449701107797) explaining in details why I thought we should take more time to gather features for 7.0. Zeev replied that it was absolutely impossible, and that the timeline had to be respected. Now, after more calls from many of you to delay it, and as Zeev himself seemed to consider it as more acceptable, I am proposing again to delay 7.0 feature freeze to May, 15 (2 month delay, date where vote is starting). I won’t repeat all the arguments of my previous posts but, to summarize, it would allow to include important features, making it a ‘real’ major version. Releasing a major version is not just a question of BC break, we also need to think about what we put forward. So, we need features. We already have STH, but we can do more (I personally have at least 4 RFCs I didn’t have time for, including scalar pseudo-methods, which can be an important feature). @Anthony, don’t get me wrong, it is absolutely not a way to keep competing about STH. Your RFC is accepted, that’s fine, the debate is over. If we decide for an additional delay, I may propose something about STH, but it will be a follow-up to your RFC, proposing additions, not an alternative STH system. So, Zeev asked in a previous mail how we could decide to delay the timeline, as it would theoretically require an RFC, which would take all the time. Good question. But, as I have a feeling that everyone except Zeev was quite flexible on the question, maybe we can have an agreement without organizing a formal vote. Just a proposal, give thoughts. Regards François --- ## #85372 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2015-03-21T16:05:36+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85371#85372 · In reply to: #85371 > Now, after more calls from many of you to delay it, and as Zeev himself > seemed to consider it as more acceptable, I am proposing again to delay 7.0 > feature freeze to May, 15 (2 month delay, date where vote is starting). I > won’t repeat all the arguments of my previous posts but, to summarize, it > would allow to include important features, making it a ‘real’ major version. > Releasing a major version is not just a question of BC break, we also need > to think about what we put forward. So, we need features. We already have > STH, but we can do more (I personally have at least 4 RFCs I didn’t have > time for, including scalar pseudo-methods, which can be an important > feature). No, please, let's get what we have stabilized and out the door. There are always more things to do and we can delay things indefinitely. And I completely disagree that this isn't a 'real' major version. -Rasmus --- ## #85376 — Zeev Suraski — 2015-03-21T16:55:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85371#85376 · In reply to: #85372 Sent from my mobile > > > > […] > > No, please, let's get what we have stabilized and out the door. There > are always more things to do and we can delay things indefinitely. And I > completely disagree that this isn't a 'real' major version. +1 Zeev --- ## #85381 — Pierre Joye — 2015-03-21T17:44:23+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85371#85381 · In reply to: #85376 > > > > Sent from my mobile > > > […] delay 7.0 > > […] starting). I > > […] it > > […] version. > > […] need > > […] have > > […] have > > […] > > +1 Same. > Zeev --- ## #85385 — Benoit Schildknecht — 2015-03-21T20:09:47+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85371#85385 · In reply to: #85381 Le Sat, 21 Mar 2015 18:44:23 +0100, Pierre Joye a écrit: > > > […] > delay 7.0 > > […] > starting). I > > […] > it > > […] > version. > > […] > need > > […] > have > > […] > have > > […] > > Same. > > > […] Same here, very bad idea --- ## #85388 — Netroby — 2015-03-22T00:21:23+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85371#85388 · In reply to: #85385 Please do not delay. Any one remember PHP 6 ? Delay is bad smell. means the project will failure. PHP 7 already had much more features. That's fine . Just ship it . Appreciate your time. ---------------------------- Netroby 2015-03-22 4:09 GMT+08:00 Benoit Schildknecht : > Le Sat, 21 Mar 2015 18:44:23 +0100, Pierre Joye a > écrit: > > > > […] > > > Same here, very bad idea --- ## #85407 — francois@php.net — 2015-03-22T10:40:41+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85371#85407 · In reply to: #85388 OK. It was just a suggestion. Forget it. Thanks for your time. > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Netroby [mailto:hufeng1987@gmail.com] > Envoyé : dimanche 22 mars 2015 01:21 > À : Benoit Schildknecht > Cc : PHP Internals > Objet : Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal to delay 7.0 timeline > > Please do not delay. Any one remember PHP 6 ? > > Delay is bad smell. means the project will failure. > > PHP 7 already had much more features. That's fine . > Just ship it . > > Appreciate your time. > ---------------------------- > Netroby > > > 2015-03-22 4:09 GMT+08:00 Benoit Schildknecht : > > […] > wrote: > > […] > summarize, > > […] > already > > […] --- ## #85412 — Levi Morrison — 2015-03-22T15:26:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85371#85412 · In reply to: #85371 > So, we need features. We already have > STH, but we can do more (I personally have at least 4 RFCs I didn’t have > time for, including scalar pseudo-methods, which can be an important > feature). We add scalar and return types in PHP 7.0. We also add null coalesce `??` and three-way comparison operator `<=>`. All-in-all, we have good features already. I don't see why we need to post-pone PHP 7.0 for more features. --- ## #85429 — Andi Gutmans — 2015-03-24T05:23:20+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85371#85429 · In reply to: #85372 > > > > […] > > No, please, let's get what we have stabilized and out the door. There > are always more things to do and we can delay things indefinitely. And I > completely disagree that this isn't a 'real' major version. > > -Rasmus > +1