On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Xinchen Hui <larue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey: > > I really don't like arguing in english, so this will be my last > reply in this thread. > sorry to bother you, and my "backlash" wasn't really targeted you personally. > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Xinchen Hui <larue...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hey: > >> > >> > 在 2014年7月21日，19:02，Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> 写道： > >> > > >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> He just asks if we will have a 5.7 release while working on the next > >> >> major > >> >> in master. > >> >> > >> >> I don't think that we can release the php-next under a years, so I > >> >> think > >> >> that an 5.7 could be warranted (to keep up with our roadmap), but > >> >> depends > >> >> on wether or not we have enough new (BC-safe) features. > >> >> > >> >> I don’t see a reason of why we can’t have this major version ready by > >> >> or > >> >> even sooner than the current yearly rhythm we have. In fact, if we > do > >> >> aim > >> >> to work in parallel on both 5.7 and .NEXT � we’re likely to > needlessly > >> >> delay .NEXT… > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Zeev > >> > > >> > because there is so much stuff which we want to do in the next major > >> > version, but we can't even start because there is no stable base to > >> > target > >> > the other php-next features. > >> What they are? Please come with RFC and Patches. > > > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/uniform_variable_syntax > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64_next > > aren't they discussed and voted? what do you mean by we can't even > start in previous comment? > yes, and both of those were put on hold by the authors until the phpng situation is resolved, and to me it feels wrong to block something which is done and accepted with something which is not-yet finished(albeit it seems to be reaching a stable state) and didn't have a consensus behind it. > > > >> > >> Or you suggest we stop the current work to waiting them come their self? > > > > > > I'm saying that we should resolve the current situation where people > can't > > work on stuff which would target php-next, because it is still a moving > > target. > > why Nikita could work on it? why me can work on it? > I'm not saying that you should implement other people's RFCs. we have a couple of options: - ignore phpng with the other RFCs/changes, and continue working on master, making it your problem to try to stabilize phpng while catching up to a constantly moving target, which is bad. - we could also continue the current trend that we simply don't merge stuff until phpng is voted and merged, which is bad - we could also work together to sort out the controversial topics/features about the current phpng branch, and figure out a way to either resolve the issues, or exclude those stuff from the initial merge, and have most of the phpng stuff merged into master, so we can start working together in a common branch instead of blocking each other. > > > I'm saying that it is nice that you(the phpng main devs) are confident > that > > you can stabilize your changes so making a php-next release in less than > a > > year, but other people have other ideas which can only happen in a major > > version, and you shouldn't rush an early release which would mean that > the > > next window of opportunity for major refactor is in the next decade. > I am not sure about you attitude here, from these words, seems you > agree to merge phpng to master asap, then people can start work on it? > yes! > > > I'm saying that it is pretty unfortunate that we have to decide to > between > > reviewing/accepting a huuuuuuuge chunk of changes or rejecting a > significant > > performance boost and some api cleanup. > > we shouldn't, at least most people here shouldn't, only the guys who > need to maintain them should. > what I wanted to say that it is better to review and merge smaller chunks of changes. I know that "You Can't Cross a Chasm in Two Small Steps", eg. that the initial work has to be done, but I think what we have is already more than enough for the initial merge. > > > I'm saying that we should stop pushing our own agendas, and figure out > the > > best possible solution for the current situation, so that we can go > forward > > with the development with the normal workflow, where everybody is on the > > same page, controversial changes are done through RFCs and we don't block > > each other from the work. > > you know what? I really don't like "we should; we must", they means > nothing.. > > I have spent lots of my time to work on PHP/PHPNG, more than 80 hours > per month. > > I treat it like a regular work, dmitry spends more than me(8 hours per > day). > > you ask me to stop to wait somebody who even can not work hours a month > here? > with all my respects: I really upset by people who always told you, > hey man, don't be rush... > > because I am rushing, I have be rushing for months to make the work done.. > > last of all : "all above is my personal comments, has nothing to do > with Zend"... > I'm really happy that you are enthusiastic about working on the project and that you contribute so much of your spare time on the project. I'm not sure who do you refer by "you ask me to stop to wait somebody who even can not work hours a month here?" but I do agree that those who not contribute shouldn't block those who are willing to(as long as the contribution is safe ofc.). But I don't think that is the case here, I think that we would have a lot more people contributing if phpng(or at least most of it) would be in master. And I think that the current way to ignore everybody and just focus up piling up the code and we will somehow get it merged is counterproductive to both of the phpng devs and for the other regular php-src devs also. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
