>
>
> On 27 07 2014, at 11:44, Kris Craig (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 statistics you
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
Hi Kris,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Kris Craig 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 the sources a
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Michael Wallner
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27 Jul 2014 09:26, "Kris Craig" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Michael Wallner <
>> mike.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>>
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Michael Wallner
wrote:
>
> On 27 07 2014, at 11:44, Kris Craig 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 friends as current competitors, bein
Hi all,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Michael Wallner
wrote:
>
> On 27 Jul 2014 09:26, "Kris Craig" 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" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Here's m
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
On 27 07 2014, at 11:44, Kris Craig 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,
Mike
--
PHP Interna
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Michael Wallner
wrote:
>
> On 27 Jul 2014 09:26, "Kris Craig" 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" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Here's my questio
On 27 Jul 2014 09:26, "Kris Craig" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Michael Wallner
wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27 Jul 2014 08:23, "Kris Craig" 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
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
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 e
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Michael Wallner
wrote:
>
> On 27 Jul 2014 08:23, "Kris Craig" 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? Do you have any data to support
On 27 Jul 2014 08:23, "Kris Craig" 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 8:10 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> On 27 07 2014, at 02:53, Kris Craig 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 lan
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Michael Wallner
wrote:
>
> On 27 07 2014, at 02:53, Kris Craig 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
On 27 07 2014, at 02:53, Kris Craig 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. I would again
On 27 Jul 2014, at 01:53, Kris Craig 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));”
Those are to be consid
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Zeev Suraski 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 RFC
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 com
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 wrote:
>
> On 26 Jul 2014, at 23:16, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > *“**Given
On 26 Jul 2014, at 23:16, Zeev Suraski 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. This
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 Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig 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 th
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.
2014.07.25. 9:52, "Zeev Suraski" ezt írta:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig 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 ru
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig 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
:* 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
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig 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
> technically a 50%
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 wrote:
> Hi Zeev,
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > The RFC is available
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Kris Craig 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
> technically a 50%+1 vo
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Zeev,
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > The RFC is available at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng
> >
> >
> >
> > Some supporting links available down below.
> >
> >
> >
> > Comments welcome!
> >
>
> While this
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski 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
Isn't
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Zeev Suraski 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 the wron
Hi Dmitry,
On 25 Jul, 2014, at 6:09 am, Dmitry Stogov 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 do it :),
> On 25 ביול 2014, at 01:35, Jan Ehrhardt 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 emotionally
at
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > On 25 ביול 2014, at 01:35, Jan Ehrhardt 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,
> On 25 ביול 2014, at 01:35, Jan Ehrhardt 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 attached to th
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: http://www.php.net/unsu
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 wo
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Dmitry Stogov 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
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 24, 2014 10:13 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote:
> > >
> > > agre
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 wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2014 10:13 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote:
> >
> > agree,
> >
> > I just don't see any blockers, except for Pierre.
>
> Come on Dmitry,
On Jul 24, 2014 10:13 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote:
>
> agree,
>
> I just don't see any blockers, except for Pierre.
Come on Dmitry, I am not the only who has asked that.
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 wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I didn't see any phpng related discussion for a day.
>> If we have nothing
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 wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2014 9:45 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote:
> >
> > Vote
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Dmitry Stogov 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. if anyone
On Jul 24, 2014 9:45 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" 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 the migra
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 wrote:
> hi Dmitry,
>
> On Thu, J
hi Dmitry,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Dmitry Stogov 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
arcrm.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
t; -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
> -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 docum
On 23/07/14 13:05, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> It does sound very much as if
>> > phpng is already a done deal and it just need to be rubber stamped into
>> > the main development stream?
> It's not a rubber stamp. If you don't feel it should make it in and enough
> people will think like you, then it
On 22 ביול 2014, at 15:39, Lester Caine wrote:
> It does sound very much as if
> phpng is already a done deal and it just need to be rubber stamped into
> the main development stream?
It's not a rubber stamp. If you don't feel it should make it in and enough
people will think like you, then it
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 n
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Etienne Kneuss 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 decide to go ahead with
t
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Matteo Beccati 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 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Once the RFC is approved (I hope)
> >>
> >> Before the merge RFC can be cons
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 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 compreh
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
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
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > Once the RFC is approved (I hope)
> >
>
> Before the merge RFC can be considered for voting, I think
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski 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
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski 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 https://wiki.ph
On 22 ביול 2014, at 15:17, Ferenc Kovacs 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 to have a co
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Ferenc Kovacs 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 to have a
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 t
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Zeev Suraski 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), but depe
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>>
>> > Hey:
>> >
>> > I really don't like arguing in english, so this will be my last
>> > reply in this thread.
>> >
>>
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Eberlei
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This is the opportunity to do the cleanup now, based on phpng branch.
>> > Since
>> > the branch is pulic on
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Xinchen Hui 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
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Eberlei
> 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 back
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Xinchen Hui 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 Kovacs wrote
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
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Eberlei 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 has been done secret
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Zeev Suraski 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 wer
hi,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Zeev Suraski 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 breakages.
> -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
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Lester Caine 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 :)
Thanks. Dmit
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 tha
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
Hi David,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:42 PM, David Soria Parra 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?
> >
> > Re
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 poss
Am 7/21/14, 10:21 PM, schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki:
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
We had this policy before
Hi David,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> On 2014-07-21, Michael Wallner wrote:
> > --001a11345984e013cd04feb0d9a1
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > On 21 Jul 2014 10:21, "Julien Pauli" wrote:
> > PHP
On 2014-07-21, Michael Wallner wrote:
> --001a11345984e013cd04feb0d9a1
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On 21 Jul 2014 10:21, "Julien Pauli" wrote:
> PHP-Next.
>
> I don't think that a cleanup is nearly as important as php-ng is as we
> s
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Hi Zeev,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, 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
hi,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/uniform_variable_syntax
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64_next
>
> aren't they discussed and voted? what do you mean by we can't even
> start in previous comment?
The int64 yes, that means and it is
Hey:
I really don't like arguing in english, so this will be my last
reply in this thread.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>>
>> Hey:
>>
>> > 在 2014年7月21日，19:02，Ferenc Kovacs 写道：
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Jul 21,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> Hey:
>
> > 在 2014年7月21日，19:02，Ferenc Kovacs 写道：
> >
> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> He just asks if we will have a 5.7 release while working on the next
> major
> >> in master.
> >>
> >> I don't
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>
>
> 发自我的 iPad
>
> 在 2014年7月21日，23:30，Pierre Joye 写道：
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2014 5:28 PM, "Xinchen Hui" wrote:
>
>> Or you suggest we stop the current work to waiting them come their self?
>
> This is exactly what you have done. So what?
>
> But no
Hey:
> 在 2014年7月21日，19:02，Ferenc Kovacs 写道：
>
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Zeev Suraski 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.
Hey：
> 在 2014年7月21日，18:56，Pierre Joye 写道：
>
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>>
>> We thought about it many time, but didn't have time to do it.
>
> cleanup makes code bases smaller, more maintainable, easier to change.
> The time spent to port dead parts of PHP should h
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>> Hi Matteo,
>>
>> We have very limited forces to test everything. Once we we have bug reports
>> we may look into the problems and fix them.
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be super easy to us
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi Matteo,
>
> We have very limited forces to test everything. Once we we have bug reports
> we may look into the problems and fix them.
>
Wouldn't it be super easy to use the HHVM team infrastructure to test a
version against various PHP
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> >
> > We *could* make PHP NEXT in a year, sure, but it won't be worthwhile
> > being called PHP NEXT.
>
> Everything I know about the PHP community, combined with the amazing
> level of interest that the recen
On 21/07/2014 12:41, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi Matteo,
>
> We have very limited forces to test everything. Once we we have bug reports
> we may look into the problems and fix them.
I've been trying to help with testing and reporting on IRC the results.
I think I've mentioned Doctrine a few times
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
d PHP NEXT.
>
> Everything I know about the PHP community, combined with the amazing level
> of interest that the recent PHPNG benchmarks garnered, tells me that it
> wrong.
You needed one year+ to stabilize opcache, how long will you need for
On 21 Jul 2014, at 14:47, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Everything I know about the PHP community, combined with the amazing level
> of interest that the recent PHPNG benchmarks garnered, tells me that it
> wrong.
> People would love to get it even if it was just the performance & memory
> footprint gai
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 4:10 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Nikita Popov; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
>
>
> We *could* make PHP NEXT in a year, sure, but i
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Zeev Suraski 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
On 21 Jul 2014, at 14:06, Zeev Suraski 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 pu
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
