Hi,
Le 06/07/2014 03:13, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
I want to point out that neither options (6 nor 7) break the our
convention. PHP 6 was a live project that was worked on by many people,
and known as such by many many more; Even though it never reached GA –
there was definitely software named PHP 6. Whether reusing that version
number for something completely different several years later constitutes
breaking the current convention or applying it to reality it is open for
interpretation. I also suggest we don’t go in the direction of the 2/3
interpretation – as I pointed out in the past this places undue power in
the hands of the RFC author and his interpretation of the voting RFC (which
absolutely needs to be amended to fix that). That’s yet another reason on
why the vote should be between 6 or 7 so that problem goes away completely
– it becomes a clear choice that will have result in a clear cut decision.
It's my first post in this list, and wanted to share my external point
of view, with a parallel with the MySQL world.
MySQL 6 was alpha in 2007 and finally was never released.
So far its name has never been reused (instead we had MySQL 5.6 and 5.7
to avoid confusion, and there are also books about PHP 6 / MySQL 6)
Even on the MariaDB side, they bumped up the version to 10.0 to avoid
confusion (and because it was not based on MySQL 5.6).
There are quite a few tutorials and reference about PHP 6 on the web, it
would be misleading to have something completely different, but with the
same name as the "old" PHP 6. However I'm not convinced "7" is the right
choice, perhaps a radical change in version number would be better ?
--
Jocelyn Fournier
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
