On 21 Jul 2014, at 14:06, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > I'm not sure where the 2-3 years is coming from, but again, I see no > reason why we wouldn't be able to push .NEXT out within a year (if it's > just phpng along then actually a lot less, but I'm allowing time for extra > features we may want to put in). As a matter of fact, I don't think we > can even entertain a 2-3 cycle, it will be way too late to market if we > linger for so long.
We *could* make PHP NEXT in a year, sure, but it won’t be worthwhile being called PHP NEXT. There are a lot of big changes we can and should make and that would necessitate delaying it. Three years might be a bit long. However, I am confident that we need more than a year to make this major worth it. > This is the assumption we should take IMHO, and only branch 5.7 (and more > importantly, invest time in it) if it proves wrong. Branching 5.7 wouldn’t be a big effort. Master is fairly stable, and if some RFCs pass, we can merge them into 5.7. It also gives us a fallback. If PHP NEXT doesn’t happen next year (and I expect that it won’t), we’ll still have 5.7. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
