On 27 07 2014, at 02:53, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
So even IF you want to reduce the scope of the 2/3 requirement to language
impacts in userland only, your RFC *still* falls under that requirement
because it directly affects the language itself in userland, as described
above.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Michael Wallner mike.php@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27 07 2014, at 02:53, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
So even IF you want to reduce the scope of the 2/3 requirement to
language
impacts in userland only, your RFC *still* falls under that
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Michael Wallner mike.php@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 07 2014, at 02:53, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
So even IF you want to reduce the scope of the 2/3 requirement to language
impacts in userland only, your RFC *still* falls under that requirement
On 27 Jul 2014 08:23, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's my question to counter yours, Michael: What's the rush?
Every day php-ng is not GA, PHP is losing ground to its competitors.
People seem to ignore this because of cosmetics.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Michael Wallner mike.php@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27 Jul 2014 08:23, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's my question to counter yours, Michael: What's the rush?
Every day php-ng is not GA, PHP is losing ground to its competitors.
Umm, how?
On 27/07/14 07:23, Kris Craig wrote:
Here's my question to counter yours, Michael: What's the rush?
I think that the only 'objection' I have to 'simply' merging phpng is
that it is not just a 'single' change? This vote is all or nothing, so
every change is bundled without a vote on particular
On 27/07/14 08:26, Kris Craig wrote:
As you can see, PHP continues to dominate with over 80% market share and no
signs-- at least, none that I can see-- that we are losing ground as you
stated.
So again: What's the rush?
Especially since 75% of that are still on PHP5.3 or 5.2 ;)
But I had
On 27 Jul 2014 09:26, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Michael Wallner mike.php@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27 Jul 2014 08:23, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's my question to counter yours, Michael: What's the rush?
Every day php-ng
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Michael Wallner mike.php@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27 Jul 2014 09:26, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Michael Wallner
mike.php@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 Jul 2014 08:23, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
On 27 07 2014, at 11:44, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
[a lot]
Maybe because you see those as competitors, but I see HHVM and friends as
current competitors, being evaluated to replace stock PHP, which is definitely
not covered by any nice statistics you can currently view.
Cheers,
Instead of endless, useless bickering, how about everyone both for and
against merging jump in and start helping with phpng (docs, api
cleanup/stabilization, but fixes, etc)?
Imagine how much more stable and ready to merge it would be if you
concentrated the saber rattling energy towards actually
Hi all,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Michael Wallner mike.php@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27 Jul 2014 09:26, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Michael Wallner
mike.php@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 Jul 2014 08:23, Kris Craig
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Michael Wallner mike.php@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27 07 2014, at 11:44, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
[a lot]
Maybe because you see those as competitors,
You're the one who said PHP was losing ground to its competitors, not I.
but I see HHVM and
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi all,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Michael Wallner mike.php@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27 Jul 2014 09:26, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Michael Wallner
Hi Kris,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
According to w3techs, JavaScript retains an extremely tiny market share in
terms of general purpose languages:
http://w3techs.com/technologies/comparison/pl-java,pl-php,pl-ruby,pl-python,pl-js
It looks like
First off, I realize I am top posting but this thread is becoming extremely
off-topic, unbalanced and overall ridiculous to see from the sidelines as
someone that contributes to open source and also utilizes PHP on a daily
basis for more than the last decade.
Seriously, cut the shit! Everyone is
On 27 07 2014, at 11:44, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
(mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com) wrote:
[a lot]
Maybe because you see those as competitors, but I see HHVM and friends as
current competitors, being evaluated to replace stock PHP, which is
definitely not covered by any nice
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does
not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positive
Kris,
I’ll make it short.
EVERY RFC affects the language in *some* way – be it its features,
positioning, perception, performance, implementation, testability, you name
it. Each and every one, or we wouldn’t be discussing it on php.net’s
internals@ mailing list. So I’m afraid I’m not going
On 26 Jul 2014, at 23:16, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
*“**Given that changes to languages (as opposed to changes to apps or even
frameworks) are for the most part irreversible”*
Implementation improvements such as PHPNG are not irreversible. New
features or changed features are.
In that case tthe voting RFC should be improved. The sentence about 1/2 vs
2/3 votes is really ambiguous.
Not fixing it will always lead to discussions over and over again.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 26 Jul 2014, at 23:16, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com
On 27/07/2014 00:32, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Is PHPNG a feature? No, it’s not. It’s improvements performance
optimizations at the implementation level. Those who have been following
my involvement on internals@ over the years know my position about both
feature creep and downwards
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Kris,
I’ll make it short.
EVERY RFC affects the language in *some* way – be it its features,
positioning, perception, performance, implementation, testability, you name
it.
I believe that argument is specious. The
On 27 Jul 2014, at 01:53, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
so func_get_arg() and func_get_args() will return current value of argument
instead of the actually passed. The following code is going to be affected
“function foo($x) { $x = 2; return func_get_arg(0);} var_dump(foo(1));”
We didn't care about versions while it was a separate branch.
Changing to ZEND_ENGINE_3 makes full sense from my point of view.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does
not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positive
‘side effect’ of their apps running faster. So while we believe that
*To:* Yasuo Ohgaki
*Cc:* Zeev Suraski; PHP internals
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
We didn't care about versions while it was a separate branch.
Changing to ZEND_ENGINE_3 makes full sense from my point of view.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does
not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positive
‘side
2014.07.25. 9:52, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com ezt írta:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does
not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the
positive
‘side
Hi Zeev,
Now we're into arguing semantics of the Voting RFC. Whether you meant
something else when you wrote that is now irrelevant, it's what is written
that is the rule, not somebodies individual interpretation surely? In any
meaning full way are your words, not what the accepted RFC states.
:
-Original Message-
From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:00 AM
To: Zeev Suraski; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
I think before we do that we need to do much better documentation around
the changes
] RFC: Move phpng to master
I think before we do that we need to do much better documentation around
the changes in the engine. I know that in the past we followed the code
is
documentation pattern, but the code there becomes more and more dense,
with macros upon macros upon macros
hi Dmitry,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Hi,
I didn't see any phpng related discussion for a day.
If we have nothing to discuss, may be we should just the start a voting
process. :)
It's not a problem for me to wait a week or even month. I just like
Vote -1, I won't be surprised.
I'm asking if we have any stoppers to start the voting, if we have nothing
to discuss.
The porting guide is almost ready now, but it never be 100% ready to
someones.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi
On Jul 24, 2014 9:45 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Vote -1, I won't be surprised.
I'm asking if we have any stoppers to start the voting, if we have
nothing to discuss.
The porting guide is almost ready now, but it never be 100% ready to
someones.
It is the stopper and not only
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Hi,
I didn't see any phpng related discussion for a day.
If we have nothing to discuss, may be we should just the start a voting
process. :)
It's not a problem for me to wait a week or even month. I just like to
know.
You talk not about starting the voting, you talk about your opinion.
Anyway. No problem I can wait another week and start the voting according
to all the rules.
Dmitry.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014 9:45 PM, Dmitry Stogov
agree,
I just don't see any blockers, except for Pierre.
Lets wait a week.
Thanks, Dmitry.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Hi,
I didn't see any phpng related discussion for a
On Jul 24, 2014 10:13 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
agree,
I just don't see any blockers, except for Pierre.
Come on Dmitry, I am not the only who has asked that.
one week - two weeks - months - years.
I'll wait.
I know what I'm doing. I'll make it.
Dmitry.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014 10:13 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
agree,
I just don't see any blockers, except for
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
one week - two weeks - months - years.
I'll wait.
I know what I'm doing. I'll make it.
Dmitry.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014 10:13 PM, Dmitry Stogov
any one may vote according to their thoughts
I'm not going to persuade any one.
I already know the opinion of the majority.
Unfortunately, now many people lessen to the guys who speaks a lot.
I was never able to do it :), but ... look into results we provide.
They are more expressive than any
Dmitry Stogov in php.internals (Fri, 25 Jul 2014 02:09:53 +0400):
I already know the opinion of the majority.
Do you also know the opinion of 2/3 of the voters?
Jan (without voting right BTW)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
On 25 ביול 2014, at 01:35, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl wrote:
Dmitry Stogov in php.internals (Fri, 25 Jul 2014 02:09:53 +0400):
I already know the opinion of the majority.
Do you also know the opinion of 2/3 of the voters?
Guys,
Let's deescalate here. Dmitry is understandably quite
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On 25 ביול 2014, at 01:35, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl wrote:
Dmitry Stogov in php.internals (Fri, 25 Jul 2014 02:09:53 +0400):
I already know the opinion of the majority.
Do you also know the opinion of 2/3 of the
On 25 ביול 2014, at 01:35, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl wrote:
Dmitry Stogov in php.internals (Fri, 25 Jul 2014 02:09:53 +0400):
I already know the opinion of the majority.
Do you also know the opinion of 2/3 of the voters?
Guys,
Let's deescalate here. Dmitry is understandably quite
Hi Dmitry,
On 25 Jul, 2014, at 6:09 am, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
any one may vote according to their thoughts
I'm not going to persuade any one.
I already know the opinion of the majority.
Unfortunately, now many people lessen to the guys who speaks a lot.
I was never able to
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
That said, I completely disagree with the delayers, who also happen
to be ones who have a repeated tendency to talk a lot more than they
do. Dmitry is one if the biggest php.net doers - and us can
understand how it runs him
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
The RFC is available at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng
Some supporting links available down below.
Comments welcome!
It says Zend2 in zend.h
25 #define ZEND_VERSION 2.7.0-dev
26
27 #define ZEND_ENGINE_2
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
The RFC is available at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng
Some supporting links available down below.
Comments welcome!
While
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does not
actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positive
‘side effect’ of their apps running faster. So while we believe that
-Original Message-
From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:00 AM
To: Zeev Suraski; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
I think before we do that we need to do much better documentation around
the changes
Pierre,
I don't replay to you, because it's bad for my health. Many people here
would agree with me.
I prefer to do things instead of endlessly repeated words.
According to PHPNG - we set one big goal (performance), and worked on it
really hard. Now everyone may see the result. It's just not
Hi David,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:42 PM, David Soria Parra dso...@gmx.net wrote:
Even if we have PHP-5.7 branch, we have merge up policy. Therefore,
any new feature will end up with master, I suppose. If a new feature is
only available to PHP-5.7 branch, it's a merge bug, isn't it?
On 22/07/14 03:58, Pierre Joye wrote:
Now, as I already suggested many times (but with zero reply from
Zend's), let step back, get our roadmap setup, todos, goals, agreement
and get back to work. But a forcing move to php-next within a year
with almost only phpng is a major mistake and will
On 22/07/14 07:44, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Big PHP users just can't not to care about performance, because it's money.
I know most of them already experimented with HHVM.
Big users don't use PHP ...
If we don't provide adequate replay, we may turn back into the language for
home pages.
Is that
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
On 22/07/14 07:44, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Big PHP users just can't not to care about performance, because it's
money.
I know most of them already experimented with HHVM.
Big users don't use PHP ...
You are wrong :)
-Original Message-
From: Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:12 AM
To: PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
Big users don't use PHP ...
Just to elaborate (slightly) on Dmitry's answer - this is an absolutely
wrong
hi,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I stand by my statement that I'm
sure a great deal of users (my guesstimate - the majority) would happily
upgrade to PHP.NEXT even if the huge performance gains were the only thing
there.
I fully agree with you about
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I stand by my statement that I'm
sure a great deal of users (my guesstimate - the majority) would happily
upgrade to PHP.NEXT even if the
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de wrote:
This is the opportunity to do the cleanup now, based on phpng branch. Since
the branch is pulic on Github, how is development secret?
Benjamin, please check the background before replying. 80% of phpng
development
On 22/07/14 10:32, Pierre Joye wrote:
As i understood Nikita and laurence they are already improving it based on
the first prototype from month ago. Honestly, if Nikita says converting his
extensions improved the API a lot then this is a good sign for me already.
It does not improve anything
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
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de
wrote:
This is the opportunity to do the cleanup now, based on phpng branch.
Since
the branch is pulic on Github, how is development secret?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de
wrote:
This is the opportunity to do the cleanup now, based on phpng
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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),
On 22/07/14 13:17, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
The discussion seems to be sidetracked by the topic on when should we
release PHP-NEXT and what else should it contains.
Could we agree to put that aside for now, and agree to discuss this later,
after we managed to have a consensus on merging phpng to
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Zeev,
The discussion seems to be sidetracked by the topic on when should we
release PHP-NEXT and what else should it contains.
Could we agree to put that aside for now, and agree to discuss this later,
after we
On 22 ביול 2014, at 15:17, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Zeev,
The discussion seems to be sidetracked by the topic on when should we release
PHP-NEXT and what else should it contains.
Could we agree to put that aside for now, and agree to discuss this later,
after we managed
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Once the RFC is approved (I hope)
Before the merge RFC can be considered for voting, I think it is critical
that you provide a comprehensive migration guide highlighting the changes
required from core developers.
This means
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Once the RFC is approved (I hope)
Before the merge RFC can be considered for voting, I think it is
critical that you provide a comprehensive migration guide highlighting
the
I'll try to do this.
It would be great, if someone may help.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Etienne Kneuss etienne.kne...@epfl.ch
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Once the RFC is approved (I hope)
Before the merge RFC can be
On 22/07/14 14:37, Derick Rethans wrote:
Before the merge RFC can be considered for voting, I think it is
critical that you provide a comprehensive migration guide highlighting
the changes required from core developers. This means
https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading should be completed
On 22/07/2014 15:37, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Once the RFC is approved (I hope)
Before the merge RFC can be considered for voting, I think it is
critical that you provide a
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
On 22/07/2014 15:37, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Once the RFC is approved (I hope)
Before the merge RFC
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Etienne Kneuss etienne.kne...@epfl.ch wrote:
This means https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading should be completed to
reflect all changes.
as a pure consumer maintaining some internal extensions, I would very
much like to see this too, at least when you
Hi!
As we’re getting closer to release 5.6.0, and given the very high
level of interest in phpng, I think it’s time for us to provide some
clarity regarding what happens post 5.6.0.
Dmitry and I wrote an RFC proposing that we merge phpng into master
and turn it into the basis of the next
hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
All,
As we’re getting closer to release 5.6.0, and given the very high level of
interest in phpng, I think it’s time for us to provide some clarity
regarding what happens post 5.6.0.
Dmitry and I wrote an RFC
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
All,
As we’re getting closer to release 5.6.0, and given the very high level of
interest in phpng, I think it’s time for us to provide some
Hi
We need to consider PHP-Next jump as an opportunity to
clean our API and finally have something understandable for a newcomer,
and
documented. That's a move nobody dared to take in the last decade,
degrading more and more our codebase in term of understandability and
flexibility. This
Am 21.07.2014 10:33, schrieb Zeev Suraski:
Regarding Dmitry saying that phpng is an experimental branch - that was a
couple of months ago. It evolved, it runs apps in parity with 5.6, and it's
fine to move it to master right now. The alternative - developing 5.7 on
master and creating a
On 21/07/2014, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Regarding Dmitry saying that phpng is an experimental branch - that was a
couple of months ago. It evolved, it runs apps in parity with 5.6, and
it's
fine to move it to master right now.
Perhaps you could write a summary of what's changed
Hi Julien,
Hi
I can only agree here.
I'd like a clean API. We need to consider PHP-Next jump as an opportunity
to
clean our API and finally have something understandable for a
newcomer, and documented. That's a move nobody dared to take in the
last decade, degrading more and more our
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
As we’re getting closer to release 5.6.0, and given the very high level of
interest in phpng, I think it’s time for us to provide some clarity
regarding what happens post 5.6.0.
Are you willing to have 5.7 branch?
On 21 Jul 2014 10:21, Julien Pauli jpa...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
All,
As we’re getting closer to release 5.6.0, and given the very high
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Zeev Suraski wrote:
As we’re getting closer to release 5.6.0, and given the very high level of
interest in phpng, I think it’s time for us to provide some clarity
regarding what happens post 5.6.0.
Dmitry and I wrote an RFC proposing that we merge phpng into master and
On 21/07/2014 11:13, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Am 21.07.2014 10:33, schrieb Zeev Suraski:
Regarding Dmitry saying that phpng is an experimental branch - that was a
couple of months ago. It evolved, it runs apps in parity with 5.6, and it's
fine to move it to master right now. The alternative
-Original Message-
From: Matteo Beccati [mailto:p...@beccati.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 1:08 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Cc: Sebastian Bergmann
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
To be honest I don't think we're anywhere near the point where it's safe
*From:* yohg...@gmail.com [mailto:yohg...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Yasuo
Ohgaki
*Sent:* Monday, July 21, 2014 12:32 PM
*To:* Zeev Suraski
*Cc:* PHP internals
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
It's absolutely fine to have separate discussions on cleaning APIs, new
features and any other changes people think we should do, but it absolutely
has nothing to do with phpng moving into master. We can take the
opportunity
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
I don't think that a cleanup is nearly as important as php-ng is as we stand
currently.
The will be no mercy from the competition.
We can start reworking the API when it hit master.
Cleanup reduces the work, not
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
*From:* yohg...@gmail.com [mailto:yohg...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Yasuo
Ohgaki
*Sent:* Monday, July 21, 2014 12:32 PM
*To:* Zeev Suraski
*Cc:* PHP internals
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
Hi Zeev
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Matteo Beccati [mailto:p...@beccati.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 1:08 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Cc: Sebastian Bergmann
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi
I can only agree here.
I'd like a clean API. We need to consider PHP-Next jump as an opportunity
to
clean our API and finally have something understandable for a
newcomer, and documented. That's a move
I don't know how things are driven here, but I assume that OSS projects
don't merge stuff into master until tests pass: it's as simple as that.
That's your blocker right there, regardless of voting or any other
discussion going on.
There’s a huge difference between a major code changes as we
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.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),
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
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
There’s a huge difference between a major code changes as we line up for a
new major version – one that requires widespread testing and community
support – and the relatively minor changes we’ve had here ever since PHP 5.
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
