On 11/26/2010 11:15 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The main
motivation is that there's a VERY concrete perception amongst many users about
what PHP 6 is. It's unlikely that PHP 6 will actually be that. Skipping this
version makes
Following that logic, they will expect the next major version number, whatever
it is, to have Unicode. Nothing can be done about that apart from telling the
world it won't, including it in, or let them find out for themselves...
--
James Butler
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Dec 2010, at 19:02,
On 12/02/2010 11:23 AM, James Butler wrote:
Following that logic, they will expect the next major version number, whatever
it is, to have Unicode. Nothing can be done about that apart from telling the
world it won't, including it in, or let them find out for themselves...
If we decide the
On 2 Dec 2010, at 19:46, Christopher Jones christopher.jo...@oracle.com
wrote:
On 12/02/2010 11:23 AM, James Butler wrote:
Following that logic, they will expect the next major version number,
whatever it is, to have Unicode. Nothing can be done about that apart from
telling the
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/26/2010 11:15 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The main
motivation is that there's a VERY concrete perception amongst many users
about what
On 2010-11-26, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The
main motivation is that there's a VERY concrete perception amongst
many users about what PHP 6 is.
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
weierophin...@php.net wrote:
On 2010-11-26, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The
main motivation
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 11:58 -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
On 2010-11-26, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The
main motivation is that there's
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
2010/11/25 Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
I think that skipping to a major version is a good idea.
Two key reasons I think that:
1. It'll help us break the evil spell of the 6 version number.
Honestly, I'm not so certain we'll have
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
This doesn't seem the ideal time to introduce a new toolchain, so
sticking with SVN, we should maintain 4 branches, 5.2 (security only),
5.3 (bug fixes + security), 5.4 (agreed
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 3:03 AM
To: Ilia Alshanetsky
Cc: Zeev Suraski; Johannes Schlüter; Andi Gutmans; Jani Taskinen;
da...@php.net; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
That can always
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 12:00 PM
To: Kalle Sommer Nielsen
Cc: Zeev Suraski; Johannes Schlüter; Andi Gutmans; Jani Taskinen;
da...@php.net; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
On Fri, 26 Nov
Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
That can always be done later.
Why do it later if we could do it now? :)
Can you share some of the major things you think would constitute a stronger
reason to switch to 7 (or 11) than what we have in 5.4, that we have in the
pipeline?
Wait
; Johannes Schlüter; Andi Gutmans; Jani Taskinen;
da...@php.net; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
That can always be done later.
Why do it later if we could do it now? :)
Can you share some of the major things you think would constitute a stronger
reason to switch to 7
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 7:21 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Ilia Alshanetsky; Johannes Schlüter; Andi Gutmans; Jani Taskinen;
da...@php.net; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
On Fri, Nov 26
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I'll begin again by saying I don't feel strongly about renaming 5.4 as 7.0,
but there are some important points worth bringing up:
1. The motivation for changing major version numbers was *never* BC breakage.
It was
Only that it has no technical or features-
wise reasons to do so
Substantial engine level improvements and a couple of new language level
features (it's pushing it a bit, I agree, but not that much)
but brings its lots of risks with it.
I fail to see how changing a version number brings any
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I disagree. Google for PHP 6. I've received tons of questions about it
from non-core-community attendees to conferences.
that's the crowd I referenced to. The users I discuss too, in locale
conference, UG, enterprises, etc.
that's the crowd I referenced to. The users I discuss too, in locale
conference,
UG, enterprises, etc. never heard or only vaguely about php6. Or they heard
about it while seeing a book called PHP 6 and mysql 6 or something stupid
like that ;).
I've yet to meet someone in the last few years
Zeev Suraski wrote:
that's the crowd I referenced to. The users I discuss too, in locale conference,
UG, enterprises, etc. never heard or only vaguely about php6. Or they heard
about it while seeing a book called PHP 6 and mysql 6 or something stupid
like that;).
I've yet to meet someone
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The main
motivation is that there's a VERY concrete perception amongst many users
On 11/26/10 12:58 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Only that it has no technical or features-
wise reasons to do so
Substantial engine level improvements and a couple of new language level
features (it's pushing it a bit, I agree, but not that much)
I think the next major version should be used to
Who says it has to be 5.4? People seem to be a bit fixated on the version
there.
Major BC breaks just means the version released from trunk is 6.0. And it's
just a number. Big number, but still just a number.
Merging (by and or by magic :) features into branch created from 5.3 just
sounds
2010/11/25 Jani Taskinen jani.taski...@iki.fi:
Who says it has to be 5.4? People seem to be a bit fixated on the version
there.
I'd like to know too...
Major BC breaks just means the version released from trunk is 6.0. And it's
just a number. Big number, but still just a number.
Well,
Slightly brambly thoughts...
I think (imho) the PHP6 hype in user land died down long ago after it became
obvious it wouldn't materialise any time soon. It would be nice to see 6 to
appear if only to break the (apparent) deadlock that the Unicode stuff brought
on(I realise this is not enough
May I ask not to begin with that again? The php 2034 thing?
Let sort out what has to be sorted out, like the current proposals. In
the short term, a 5.x (with BC) is what users and developers are
looking for. We can then begin to think about the next big step.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM,
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Davey Shafik wrote:
The goal then was to essentially take the 5.3 branch, create a 5.4
branch, cherry pick commits to trunk and apply them to the 5.4 branch
and end up with a stable build. Unfortunately, subversion merging
sucks.
This has nothing to do with any sort
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:05:43 -, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Davey Shafik wrote:
The goal then was to essentially take the 5.3 branch, create a 5.4
branch, cherry pick commits to trunk and apply them to the 5.4 branch
and end up with a stable build.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:05:43 -, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Davey Shafik wrote:
The goal then was to essentially take the 5.3 branch, create a 5.4
branch, cherry pick commits to trunk and apply them to the
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
This doesn't seem the ideal time to introduce a new toolchain, so
sticking with SVN, we should maintain 4 branches, 5.2 (security only),
5.3 (bug fixes + security), 5.4 (agreed upon enhancements, no BC
breaks), 6.0 (BC
On Nov 25, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Davey Shafik wrote:
The goal then was to essentially take the 5.3 branch, create a 5.4
branch, cherry pick commits to trunk and apply them to the 5.4 branch
and end up with a stable build. Unfortunately, subversion
-Original Message-
From: Jani Taskinen [mailto:jani.taski...@iki.fi]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 12:25 AM
To: da...@php.net
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
Who says it has to be 5.4? People seem to be a bit fixated on the version
there.
Major BC
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 17:11 +, Andi Gutmans wrote:
For what it's worth the changes we've made in the Zend Engine around
performance and memory use could warrant a major version. Every major
version of PHP in the past has been driven foremost by major engine
overhauls.
Yes, larger changes
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 15:11 +, Derick Rethans wrote:
Yes, I also think trunk should be 5.4. It's not the most ideal thing
though, but something we'll have to live with. It's going to be a lot
less of a hassle than cherry picking trunk's features and graft them
onto 5.3.
Agreed.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Andi Gutmans a...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jani Taskinen [mailto:jani.taski...@iki.fi]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 12:25 AM
To: da...@php.net
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
Who says it has to be 5.4
On 11/25/10 9:20 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 17:11 +, Andi Gutmans wrote:
For what it's worth the changes we've made in the Zend Engine around
performance and memory use could warrant a major version. Every major
version of PHP in the past has been driven foremost by
hi Rasmus,
2010/11/25 Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com:
On 11/25/10 9:20 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 17:11 +, Andi Gutmans wrote:
For what it's worth the changes we've made in the Zend Engine around
performance and memory use could warrant a major version. Every
-Original Message-
From: Johannes Schlüter [mailto:johan...@schlueters.de]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:21 AM
To: Andi Gutmans
Cc: Jani Taskinen; da...@php.net; PHP Internals
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 17:11 +, Andi Gutmans wrote
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:27 AM
To: Johannes Schlüter
Cc: Andi Gutmans; Jani Taskinen; da...@php.net; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
Looking through trunk I think we are in pretty
Looking through trunk I think we are in pretty good shape. I don't
think cherry-picking and branch merging is an issue at this point. A
5.4 with the performance improvements, Traits, minus the type hinting
breakage is something we can get out pretty quickly without causing any
sort of PHP 6
2010/11/25 Andi Gutmans a...@zend.com:
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:27 AM
To: Johannes Schlüter
Cc: Andi Gutmans; Jani Taskinen; da...@php.net; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
Looking
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 17:39 +, Andi Gutmans wrote:
This is no different in the Java world, C++ as it matured or some
other technologies.
Java is currently at 1.6. (and 6 in Marketing) :-)
C++ went from ISO/IEC 14882:1998 to ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and is waiting
for C++0x, whatever the actual
On 11/25/10 9:44 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Looking through trunk I think we are in pretty good shape. I don't
think cherry-picking and branch merging is an issue at this point. A
5.4 with the performance improvements, Traits, minus the type hinting
breakage is something we can get out
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:26 AM
To: Ilia Alshanetsky
Cc: Johannes Schlüter; Andi Gutmans; Jani Taskinen; da...@php.net; PHP
Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
We also need that non-null
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
We also need that non-null zend_parse_parameters type implemented to clean
up the null-byte poisoning fixes in 5.3. I can't see this slowing us down
much as
it is pretty trivial. Just takes someone to sit down for a couple of hours
and
implementing
On 11/25/10 10:33 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:26 AM
To: Ilia Alshanetsky
Cc: Johannes Schlüter; Andi Gutmans; Jani Taskinen; da...@php.net; PHP
Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re
Taskinen; da...@php.net; PHP
Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
We also need that non-null zend_parse_parameters type implemented to clean
up the null-byte poisoning fixes in 5.3. I can't see this slowing us down
much as
it is pretty trivial. Just takes someone to sit down
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:46 AM
To: Andi Gutmans
Cc: Ilia Alshanetsky; Johannes Schlüter; da...@php.net; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
Yes I agree. We may be able to skip
10:26 AM
To: Ilia Alshanetsky
Cc: Johannes Schlüter; Andi Gutmans; Jani Taskinen; da...@php.net; PHP
Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
We also need that non-null zend_parse_parameters type implemented to clean
up the null-byte poisoning fixes in 5.3. I can't see this slowing
On 11/25/10 11:01 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
I noticed it where functions accepts a path, do some checks (exists,
writable, etc.), resolves paths, etc. and then similar ops are done
again in a couple of places before we call the low level functions,
like in stream, tsrm for example, or extension
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 10:25 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
We also need that non-null zend_parse_parameters type implemented to
clean up the null-byte poisoning fixes in 5.3.
Recently there was an off-list discussion about adding support for
accepting non-empty strings only via
to some degree).
My 2c.
Zeev
-Original Message-
From: Johannes Schlüter [mailto:johan...@schlueters.de]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 7:55 PM
To: Andi Gutmans
Cc: Jani Taskinen; da...@php.net; PHP Internals
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 17:39
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 16:56, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Can't say I feel strongly about it, but I have a feeling that unless we
change our versioning scheme a slight bit, we'll be stuck in the 5.x realm
for a very long time (and I do think it actually reflects badly on the way
the
the language is perceived to some degree).
My 2c.
Zeev
-Original Message- From: Johannes Schlüter
[mailto:johan...@schlueters.de] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010
7:55 PM To: Andi Gutmans Cc: Jani Taskinen; da...@php.net; PHP
Internals Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Hold off 5.4
On Thu, 2010-11
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I think that skipping to a major version is a good idea.
It is appealing but not a good idea. I think it is better to get 5.4
with the features we like in it and then consider a major version.
There are quite a few things that
I don't think the version # makes that much of a difference, but
rather what is in it. That said, people have made a good point that
jumping to something like 7, would allow us to skip the baggage
associated with PHP6, which seems like a fairly compelling argument to
me.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at
That can always be done later. Even if I don't think users care much
about 6 or 7 being the version for the next major release. However for
what I can read or hear, they care about traits and many of the points
described in the RFC.
Maybe we could focus on getting the RFC sorted out and figure
Hi
2010/11/25 Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
I think that skipping to a major version is a good idea.
Two key reasons I think that:
1. It'll help us break the evil spell of the 6 version number. Honestly,
I'm not so certain we'll have major engine rewrites the size of what we've
seen in
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 11/23/2010 02:30 AM, Felipe Pena wrote:
5.4 should be hold off until we solved the listed issues and the
release management RFC gets discussed and hopefully approved.
+1
+1 here too.
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye |
On Nov 24, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 11/23/2010 02:30 AM, Felipe Pena wrote:
5.4 should be hold off until we solved the listed issues and the
release management RFC gets discussed and hopefully approved.
2010/11/25 Davey Shafik da...@php.net:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 11/23/2010 02:30 AM, Felipe Pena wrote:
5.4 should be hold off until we solved the listed issues and the
release management RFC
61 matches
Mail list logo
