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 and PHP 7. If you're > aware of other proposals that were made then please state them, otherwise, > I think it's a very clear decision between 6 and 7 - and putting this as a > 'yes/no' for 6 gives it undue advantage.
Well, if we have the current yes/no to PHP 6 vote, then if it passes, we get PHP 6. If it doesn’t pass, we’re back where we were before. If we go for PHP 6/PHP 7 vote, then the result is unclear. Would one option be the default? Would it be PHP 7 if it’s not PHP 6? Would it be PHP 6 if it’s not PHP 7? In which case, what’s the point in a majority? We could hold a 50%+1 vote, but such a vote would be contentious and would be a popularity contest, not requiring consensus. If we don’t have a default, and either 6 has to get 2/3 or 7 has to get 2/3, then we should have an Other option, or a Continue Discussion option, or both. This is all way too complicated for me and I don’t want the vote to be contentious or confusing. Hence, it is a Yes/No vote to PHP 6. If it fails, we are back to where we were before. If it passes, the name is PHP 6. It could not be more straightforward, and the result cannot be misinterpreted. It requires a 2/3 majority to pass, so it would require consensus. Again, this is my position and I am sticking to it. I see no good reason to complicate matters. >> I've covered the PHP 7 issue more now. > > Not really, not in a meaningful way. You haven't covered the real > drawbacks of calling it PHP 6 (it's still this books thing which nobody > cares about, and perhaps even incites people to support 6 just to spite > these 'evil book authors'), and you haven't covered the advantages or > disadvantages of calling it 7 - beyond a very weak and very biased > dismissal. I'm intentionally not going into those here, because I don't > want to (re)start the discussion right here and now. A lot has been said > already about this and the RFC should reflect it, or not move ahead. I’m willing to take suggestions, if that could improve it. > Andrea - this updated RFC is the very definition of tucking the discussion > under the carpet and trying to run ahead to force a 6 decision without > doing the discussion that already took place any justice. > > The only way to really make the case for both options is for someone who > believes in each option to make the case; And to make this RFC about a > decision between these two. Which options? 6 and 7? This isn’t a 6 vs 7 RFC. This is a 6 or not RFC. Sure, I can’t make a great case against 6, unfortunately. I am willing to accept suggestions here. > However, I have to say I wish that instead of (IMHO) wasting energy on > such a discussion at this point, we'd focus on the actual content of > php.next. People sharing phpng benchmarks and testing it with their apps > would be a whole lot more productive use of our time. The entire point of this RFC is to get the discussion over with sooner rather than later, and hopefully come to a decision quickly so we don’t need to discuss it again. Also, I disagree that holding a vote to settle the name matter once and for all is a waste of energy. It should, hopefully, mean less energy wasted than otherwise in future. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
