Am 17.12.2014 um 15:54 schrieb Zeev Suraski:
> I’m opposed to having a 5.7 release that has new features on
> top of 5.6.x.
Same here; 5.7 should only add deprecations etc. and must not add new
features.
> I also think we should minimize any new work on 5.6.x as much as
> possible, and focus al
could you clarify one thing for me?
from that sentence it seems that you aren't really against having small new
features (as those are already happened/happening in 5.6.x and you did not
mention that you have a problem with that) but you think that there would
be more/bigger features happening if
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > > - Rolling out a 5.7 with Warnings-of-any-kind + some little-or-not
> > > new features cancels point number one
> > >
> > > What else ?
> >
> > Do nothing is still (IMHO) the most sensible option IMHO. We're not
> > seeing major compatibility bre
On 17/12/14 00:45, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
>> On 16 Dec 2014, at 23:42, Pierre Joye
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2014 4:19 AM, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, actually, a 2to3-esque tool and a formal extension of 5.6's
>>> support by a year sounds like a better solution. If o
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
>> On 16 Dec 2014, at 23:42, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2014 4:19 AM, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
>> >
>> > Hmm, actually, a 2to3-esque tool and a formal extension of 5.6's support
>> > by a year sounds like a better s
Hi Pierre,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 23:42, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2014 4:19 AM, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, actually, a 2to3-esque tool and a formal extension of 5.6's support by
> > a year sounds like a better solution. If others agree, I might withdraw
> > this RFC.
> >
>
On Dec 17, 2014 4:19 AM, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
>
> Hey Florian,
>
> > On 16 Dec 2014, at 19:55, Florian Margaine wrote:
> >
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I think having a minor PHP version for the only sake of adding
E_DEPRECATED
> > is kind of pointless to be honest. Historically, PHP (or other language
> From: a...@adamharvey.name [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name] On
> Behalf Of Adam Harvey
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 12:29 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
>
> I think it's actually more likely that people will up
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyr...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:53 PM
> > To: Florian Margaine
> > Cc: Rowan Collins; PHP Internals
> &g
>
>
> > - Rolling out a 5.7 with Warnings-of-any-kind + some little-or-not new
> > features cancels point number one
> >
> > What else ?
>
> Do nothing is still (IMHO) the most sensible option IMHO. We're not seeing
> major compatibility breakages in 7.0 (at least not at this time), to the
> level
On 16 December 2014 at 14:19, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: a...@adamharvey.name [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name] On
>> Behalf Of Adam Harvey
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 12:10 AM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: PHP Internals
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a...@adamharvey.name [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name] On
> Behalf Of Adam Harvey
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 12:10 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
>
> On 16 December 2014 at
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Julien Pauli wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Florian Margaine
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I think having a minor PHP version for the only sake of adding
> E_DEPRECATED
> > is kind of pointless to be honest. Historically, PHP (or other languages
>
On 16 December 2014 at 14:00, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> - We cannot patch 5.6 to add any Warnings-of-any-kind (stable release,
>> under release process that forbids that)
>
> What part of the release process forbids that?
None, but I'd still advocate releasing a new minor because there's
plenty of a
> -Original Message-
> From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:53 PM
> To: Florian Margaine
> Cc: Rowan Collins; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
>
> please be aware the not everybody agrees on the n
On 16 December 2014 at 13:18, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hmm, actually, a 2to3-esque tool and a formal extension of 5.6's support by a
> year sounds like a better solution. If others agree, I might withdraw this
> RFC.
I disagree. 2to3 wasn't a success in the Python world — in the end,
the only mig
> -Original Message-
> From: julienpa...@gmail.com [mailto:julienpa...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Julien Pauli
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:00 PM
> To: Florian Margaine
> Cc: Rowan Collins; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
>
> - We
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Florian Margaine
wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> I think having a minor PHP version for the only sake of adding E_DEPRECATED
> is kind of pointless to be honest. Historically, PHP (or other languages
> for the matter, I'm thinking of python) minor versions have brought new
Hey Florian,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 19:55, Florian Margaine wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> I think having a minor PHP version for the only sake of adding E_DEPRECATED
> is kind of pointless to be honest. Historically, PHP (or other languages
> for the matter, I'm thinking of python) minor versions have
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Florian Margaine
wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> I think having a minor PHP version for the only sake of adding E_DEPRECATED
> is kind of pointless to be honest. Historically, PHP (or other languages
> for the matter, I'm thinking of python) minor versions have brought new
Hi list,
I think having a minor PHP version for the only sake of adding E_DEPRECATED
is kind of pointless to be honest. Historically, PHP (or other languages
for the matter, I'm thinking of python) minor versions have brought new
features. Adding notices is not a reason for a new version imho.
If
On 16 December 2014 at 10:38, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> I've tried to search the ML for such list of RFCs:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/gc_fn_pointer
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/secure_unserialize (also 5.6 if RMs agree)
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closure_apply
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pa
On 16 December 2014 16:44:59 GMT, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>as you mentioned distros lock in to a specific micro version, so if we
>introduce this deprecated messages in random micro version, we make it
>less
>likely for the users to stumble upon those deprecated messages and it
>will
>be also harder f
Hi!
> I've tried to search the ML for such list of RFCs:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/gc_fn_pointer
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/secure_unserialize (also 5.6 if RMs agree)
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closure_apply
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pack_unpack_64bit_formats (targeting 5.6)
> https://wiki.ph
Cc: Andrea Faulds; PHP Internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
> >
> > >> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have
> > made a very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP
> > 5.7,
> > to be rele
On Dec 16, 2014 9:10 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:00 AM
> > To: Ferenc Kovacs
> > Cc: Matteo Beccati; Xinchen Hui; PHP Internals
> >
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> as you mentioned distros lock in to a specific micro version, so if we
> introduce this deprecated messages in random micro version, we make it less
> likely for the users to stumble upon those deprecated messages and it will
> be also harde
as you mentioned distros lock in to a specific micro version, so if we
introduce this deprecated messages in random micro version, we make it less
likely for the users to stumble upon those deprecated messages and it will
be also harder for us to communicate the upgrade path:
compare:
okay, you o
> I was initially very much in favour of a 5.7 release, but given the current
> lack of big BC breaks I'm not so sure. I can even run a dinosaur like Revive
> on PHP7!
>
> If the list of BC breaks grows (e.g. PHP4 constructors -- which I seriously
> hope doesn't pass -- or other big / evil ones), t
>> >> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have
>> made a very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP
>> 5.7,
>> to be released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
>> >>
>> > I am wondering why we need that? no new features
ndrea Faulds; PHP Internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
> >
> > >> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have
> > made a very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP
> > 5.7,
> > to be re
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> Hey Matteo,
>
> > On 16 Dec 2014, at 11:29, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> >
> > This is what I meant when I previously mentioned seeing RFCs targeting
> 5.7. I understand what you say and I do wholeheartedly agree with you.
> >
> > However if o
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> Hey Matteo,
>
> > On 16 Dec 2014, at 10:52, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> >
> > On 16/12/2014 08:55, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >> Could you tell me which RFCs targeted 5.7 and didn’t just add
> deprecation notices? I’m unaware of any.
> >
> > I've
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have
> > made a very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5,
> > PHP 5.7, to be released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new
> > features whats
> -Original Message-
> From: morrison.l...@gmail.com [mailto:morrison.l...@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Levi Morrison
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:29 AM
> To: Xinchen Hui
> Cc: Andrea Faulds; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
>
> >>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:00 AM
> To: Ferenc Kovacs
> Cc: Matteo Beccati; Xinchen Hui; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
>
> Hey,
>
> > On 16 Dec 2014, at 07:58,
Hey Matteo,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 11:29, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>
> This is what I meant when I previously mentioned seeing RFCs targeting 5.7. I
> understand what you say and I do wholeheartedly agree with you.
>
> However if one would have to strictly follow what has been voted, such
> featur
On 16/12/2014 12:03, Andrea Faulds wrote:
I wrote the Closure::call() and intdiv() RFCs. Truth be told, they
both targeted master, not a specific PHP version. master has become
PHP 7, so whatever the wording of them said, they really target PHP 7
now. They were written back before the whole PHP 7
Hi Andrea,
On 16/12/2014 12:10, Andrea Faulds wrote:
It'd be nice to describe what we have now for 5.7 - i.e. which
deprecation messages and other warnings are on the agenda? Doesn't have
to be the exclusive list but at least to give the idea what we're
talking about.
At the moment, there’s Le
Hey Stas,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 09:25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have
>> made a very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5,
>> PHP 5.7, to be released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new
>> features whatsoever.
Hey Matteo,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 10:52, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>
> On 16/12/2014 08:55, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Could you tell me which RFCs targeted 5.7 and didn’t just add deprecation
>> notices? I’m unaware of any.
>
> I've tried to search the ML for such list of RFCs:
>
> https://wiki.php.
On 16/12/2014 08:55, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Could you tell me which RFCs targeted 5.7 and didn’t just add deprecation
notices? I’m unaware of any.
I've tried to search the ML for such list of RFCs:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/gc_fn_pointer
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/secure_unserialize (also 5.6 if R
Hi!
> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have
> made a very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5,
> PHP 5.7, to be released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new
> features whatsoever.
>
> The hope is that we can put this to a vote in 2 weeks’ time an
On 16/12/14 07:29, Levi Morrison wrote:
>>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a
>>> very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be
>>> released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
>>> >>
>> > I am wondering
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> > On 16 Dec 2014, at 07:58, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> >
> > We already has one accepted RFC which targets 5.7, and as I mentioned
> before 5.7.0 wouldn't be featureless, but would contain the small
> self-contained features which are
Hey,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 07:58, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
> We already has one accepted RFC which targets 5.7, and as I mentioned before
> 5.7.0 wouldn't be featureless, but would contain the small self-contained
> features which are currently targeting 5.6.x.
> So 5.7.0 would be a minor version
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>
> On 16/12/2014 05:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>
>>> Good evening,
>>>
>>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made
>>> a very simple RFC. It proposes a f
Hi Matteo,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 07:52, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>
> On 16/12/2014 05:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>> Good evening,
>>>
>>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a
>>> very simple RFC. It propose
On 16/12/2014 05:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a very
simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be released at
the same time as PHP 7
Hi everyone,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:15, Adam Harvey wrote:
>
> On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
>
> Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
>
> On timing: I think we should release 5.7 in August (12 months a
>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a
>> very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be
>> released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
>>
> I am wondering why we need that? no new features
>
> I thin
Hi Xinchen,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 04:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Good evening,
>>
>> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a
>> very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a
> very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be
> released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> > On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:15, Adam Harvey wrote:
> >
> > On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >> The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
> >
> > Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
> >
Hi Adam,
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:15, Adam Harvey wrote:
>
> On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
>
> Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
>
> On timing: I think we should release 5.7 in August (12 months after
On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
On timing: I think we should release 5.7 in August (12 months after
5.6), rather than lining it up with 7.0. This gives us the opportunity
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7". I have made a very
simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be released
at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
The hope is that we can put this to a vote in 2 weeks’ time an
57 matches
Mail list logo
