On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On 7 ביול 2014, at 08:59, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 7 Jul 2014, at 13:57, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I don't think it's a problem, because I don't think we're two years
away from releasing a phpng-based
hi,
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
While I'm not sure whether this isn't a bit premature to have this
discussion, if we were to have this discussion, the RFC should do a much
better job at summarizing the discussions we already had in the past.
I think it
On 7 Jul 2014, at 12:31, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
I seriously hope that you take 2015 as pure example here. As I see no
remote chance to be ready next year. PHPNG is a huge stack of
undocumented perf patches far from being ready, APIs code cleanup did
not even begin, and the
On 07/07/14 12:31, Pierre Joye wrote:
I seriously hope that you take 2015 as pure example here. As I see no
remote chance to be ready next year. PHPNG is a huge stack of
undocumented perf patches far from being ready, APIs code cleanup did
not even begin, and the existing APIs are even more
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
On 07/07/14 12:31, Pierre Joye wrote:
I seriously hope that you take 2015 as pure example here. As I see no
remote chance to be ready next year. PHPNG is a huge stack of
undocumented perf patches far from being ready, APIs
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 7 Jul 2014, at 13:19, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
I am skeptical on bigint in the engine given what is possible now in
gmp. But yes, phpng is also a problem as it creates a total new code
base and barely blocks
On 7 Jul 2014, at 13:19, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
I am skeptical on bigint in the engine given what is possible now in
gmp. But yes, phpng is also a problem as it creates a total new code
base and barely blocks any other improvements. Why? Except that bigint
thing, I do not
On 7 ביול 2014, at 08:50, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
The problem is that people who want to add stuff for PHP 6 feel they have to
add it to phpng, because if phpng is to be PHP 6, then it would need to be
based off that branch.
I don't think it's a problem, because I don't think
On 7 Jul 2014, at 13:57, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I don't think it's a problem, because I don't think we're two years
away from releasing a phpng-based version and I don't think it's a
moving target at this point. So I agree we need to remove these
uncertainties.
I'm going to
And here we go. So basically you are saying that once phpng is stabilized,
no matter the api/SRC cleanness, we are good for next. This is very bad and
I will vote -1 on anything close to this idea.
Besides that, the same kind of estimation was done for opcache, which was a
much smaller beast.
On 7 ביול 2014, at 08:59, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 7 Jul 2014, at 13:57, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I don't think it's a problem, because I don't think we're two years
away from releasing a phpng-based version and I don't think it's a
moving target at this point. So I
On 7 Jul 2014, at 14:13, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On 7 ביול 2014, at 08:59, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 7 Jul 2014, at 13:57, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I don't think it's a problem, because I don't think we're two years
away from releasing a phpng-based version
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On 7 ביול 2014, at 08:50, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
The problem is that people who want to add stuff for PHP 6 feel they have to
add it to phpng, because if phpng is to be PHP 6, then it would need to be
based off
On 06/07/14 02:13, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I still absolutely think we should bury this until later in the project’s
lifecycle as our energy **right now** is probably much better spent
elsewhere.
The problem with that statement is just how do you identify what
material one is looking at relates to
On 5 Jul 2014, at 22:23, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
This RFC attempts to settle the matter once and for all with a straight
yes/no vote as to whether the name should be PHP 6. Should it pass, the
matter is settled and we actually have a proper name for this fabled “PHP
NEXT”. Should
On 06/07/14 12:21, Andrea Faulds wrote:
The RFC has been updated. I’ve backed down and made the vote be 50%+1 with
the options PHP 6 and PHP 7. Hence only a plurality of votes is needed to win.
Hopefully this should be decisive, unless the number of Yes and No votes
matches.
Andrea - Your
On 6 Jul 2014, at 14:48, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Andrea - Your total disregard for anything other then a a single reason
related to books is a problem here. While printed /electronic books are
a part of the problem with the tag PHP6, there are considerable
additional
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
On 6 Jul 2014, at 16:12, Jocelyn Fournier jocelyn.fourn...@gmail.com wrote:
It's my first post in this list, and wanted to share my external point of
view, with a parallel with the MySQL world.
Welcome to PHP! :)
MySQL 6 was alpha in 2007 and finally was never released.
So far its name
On 06/07/14 16:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
I think it’s generally clear what’s for the new PHP 6 and what’s for the old;
anything from after the old PHP 6 was abandoned must be about a new PHP 6,
and anything from before it must be about the old PHP 6. If this RFC were to
pass with people
On 6 Jul 2014, at 17:46, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
On 06/07/14 16:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
I think it’s generally clear what’s for the new PHP 6 and what’s for the
old; anything from after the old PHP 6 was abandoned must be about a new PHP
6, and anything from before it must
When you have infinity at your disposal, skipping 6 and taking the
next free number - 7 - makes a whole lot more sense than trying to
rewrite the archives of history (renaming 6 to Old 6).
Similarly, while there are fairly good reasons on why we shouldn't use
6, there aren't any for the
On 6 ביול 2014, at 07:22, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 5 Jul 2014, at 22:23, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
This RFC attempts to settle the matter once and for all with a straight
yes/no vote as to whether the name should be PHP 6. Should it pass, the
matter is settled and we
On 6 Jul 2014, at 18:37, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I appreciate your change!
As such I'd like to coauthor it with you and represent the case for 7.
You’re welcome to edit the RFC and add a subsection with a case for 7. I’d
appreciate it if you could discuss edits to the existing
For my $0.02, as someone who put a fair amount of effort into PHP6 (function
conversions, streams layer, etc...) I would really prefer to not call it PHP6.
Whether not not it was ever released, it was a thing, and phpng (while awesome)
is not that thing.
PHP7 seems the obvious choice, but I'm
As such I'd like to coauthor it with you and represent the case for 7.
Andrea, I would *strongly* recommend that you accept Zeev's offer and make
him a co-author. You did present at least a partial argument for breaking
the convention, but I think they do have a valid grievance in that some
Oh and a quick question: Could you clarify how many voting choices there
are going to be? The RFC only lists PHP 6 and PHP 7, yet it says that
a plurality will be required for a win, which means that there should be
at least 3 or more choices. A plurality basically means that you got the
most
On 6 Jul 2014, at 23:38, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh and a quick question: Could you clarify how many voting choices there are
going to be? The RFC only lists PHP 6 and PHP 7, yet it says that a
plurality will be required for a win, which means that there should be at
On 6 Jul 2014, at 23:32, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrea, I would *strongly* recommend that you accept Zeev's offer and make
him a co-author. You did present at least a partial argument for breaking
the convention, but I think they do have a valid grievance in that some of
Andrea,
While I'm not sure whether this isn't a bit premature to have this
discussion, if we were to have this discussion, the RFC should do a much
better job at summarizing the discussions we already had in the past.
First, it shouldn't be a yes/no for PHP 6, but rather, a 'PHP 6, PHP 7, or
On 5 Jul 2014, at 22:57, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
While I'm not sure whether this isn't a bit premature to have this
discussion, if we were to have this discussion, the RFC should do a much
better job at summarizing the discussions we already had in the past.
That’s true. I’ve
I don't want to have a vote with over two choices, I don't think it
would be fair
(one option could pass without 50% voting for it), and a binary 6/7
choice is
forcing people's hand. I want it to be simple and straightforward, so
that is why
it is Yes or No to PHP 6. If people vote no, there
On 6 Jul 2014, at 00:05, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I think there's some confusion here.
If the next version of PHP is going to be a major one (which is clearly
defined in https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess), then I believe the
only two options that were ever raised are PHP 6
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 2:19 AM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
On 6 Jul 2014, at 00:05, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I think there's some confusion here
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 6 Jul 2014, at 00:05, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I think there's some confusion here.
If the next version of PHP is going to be a major one (which is clearly
defined in https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess),
I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a more
comprehensive section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking from the
current convention. Another section could be created to outline the other
side. What we don't want is a situation where Zeev feels compelled to
On 6 Jul 2014, at 01:29, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a more
comprehensive section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking from the
current convention. Another section could be created to outline the other
Andrea Faulds wrote:
I can see Zeev’s point that 7 is the main other option (though I also
think 6.1, or codenames, are possible though unlikely other options).
However, I don’t want to call a 50%+1 6/7 vote because it just feels
like too narrow of a majority. I suppose if that 6 yes/no vote
On 6 Jul 2014, at 02:04, Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de wrote:
Andrea Faulds wrote:
I can see Zeev’s point that 7 is the main other option (though I also
think 6.1, or codenames, are possible though unlikely other options).
However, I don’t want to call a 50%+1 6/7 vote because it just
:* Sunday, July 06, 2014 3:29 AM
*To:* Andrea Faulds
*Cc:* Zeev Suraski; PHP
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a more
comprehensive section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking from the
current
Argh, I need some sleep. I'll think about it further and respond in the
morning.
I think we have consensus here!
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
-Original Message-
From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:z...@zend.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 4:15 AM
To: 'Andrea Faulds'; 'Christoph Becker'
Cc: 'Kris Craig'; 'PHP'
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
Argh, I need some sleep. I'll think about it further
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 6 Jul 2014, at 01:29, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a
more comprehensive section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking
from the current
43 matches
Mail list logo
