On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/10/2013 15:51, Nikita Popov wrote: > >> Unless we have *concrete* plans regarding PHP 6 saying "this should go >> into (a hypothetical, non-existing) PHP 6" is roughly equivalent to just >> declining the feature.
Not sure where Nikita posted that, so I will comment here :) No, it is about defining what is good in 5.x and what is good for a future 6.x. Also the 6.x discussion should be taken in a separate thread. But I won't suggest to do it now, let keep us focused on getting 5.6 out in time > decide what goes in 5.6. > I agree with that, and think it is a real problem, but there are two > solutions: abandon the BC rules for 5.x releases, or make some concrete > plans for 6.x. It is not the time now to make plan for 6.x. But to decide what goes in 5.6 or not. > Otherwise, the release process might as well not distinguish minor and major > releases at all, and just define what is and isn't allowed in terms of BC > for the foreseeable future of PHP. That's what it does, both parts. And we can develop a 6.x branch in parallel to 5.x, f.e. 5.6.x and 5.7. The key here is to decide what are the key big changes we want in (tsrm drop, TLS support, general exceptions usage could be some of them). Cheers. -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
