Specifically, this is the sentence that just seems completely out of place:
"Arguably, while we should definitely take the opportunity to implement compatibility-breaking changes in 7.0, we also shouldn't turn it into a compatibility-breaking festival, as the more we break, the more likely it is users would delay upgrades, stay with old, insecure versions - or even consider other alternative options." Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with this opinion, but I don't think it belongs in this RFC as people's votes to approve the timeline could later be construed as endorsements of the BC philosophy you expressed, as well. That bothers me, probably enough to make me vote against this, so I really hope you remove it. I'd certainly have no objection to seeing that expanded into its own RFC, though. =) --Kris On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> > wrote: > >> On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 10:07 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> > After some Twitter hints that I should get my act together and finally >> move >> > this to a vote, it’s finally happening: >> > >> > >> > >> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline#vote >> > >> > >> > >> > Cast your vote! >> > >> > >> > >> > Zeev >> >> Morning Zeev, >> >> Proposed milestones column needs to change from mid October to >> November. >> >> Cheers >> Joe >> >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >> > Looks good, except I think you should remove the language expressing > opinion about the general merits of backwards compatibility, as that falls > outside the scope of the timeline being voted on. Plus it's an issue that > really should be discussed and, if needed, voted on separately, not as a > single sentence stuffed into an RFC about a release timeline. If I were to > vote yes on this timeline, I would not want my vote interpreted as an > endorsement of that position on BC. I think it's overreach and scope creep > that should be removed. > > Other than that one serious (but easily fixable) flaw, I think it's great! > > --Kris > > >
