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 be about the old PHP 6. If this RFC were >> to pass with people voting for 6, then it would be pretty clear that >> anything coming after it was about the new PHP 6. > > https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=php6+site%3Abugs.php.net ... > > Now one can filter additional on date, but the point here is that just > starting with the bugs list we have conflicting material that needs to > be avoided. PHP6 WAS documented extensively even just on the web site, a > lot of that material gets mirrored with more recent timestamps which > makes filtering what is new and what is old a lot more difficult. Even > PHP7 appears quite often on the website, but fortunately not too often > in the bugs list …
Can’t we just rename the PHP 6 category to “Old PHP 6” on bugs.php.net and be done with it? Or does it not work like that? -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
