Good stuff everyone. Glad the vote went through.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Julien Pauli wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2014, at 14:38, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>
>> > My sincerest apologies about all the mess earlier and the delay. Both me
>
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 23 Jul 2014, at 14:38, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> > My sincerest apologies about all the mess earlier and the delay. Both me
> and Zeev are happy enough with the RFC, so the voting for this RFC has
> started (again). It shall end on 2014
On 23 Jul 2014, at 14:38, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> My sincerest apologies about all the mess earlier and the delay. Both me and
> Zeev are happy enough with the RFC, so the voting for this RFC has started
> (again). It shall end on 2014-07-30 (next Wednesday, a week’s time) and it
> won’t be ca
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:21, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I also think that it would be reasonable to have
On 23/07/14 19:23, Kris Craig wrote:
> Wow, looks like the PHP 7 votes are dominating so far. If you want to
> avoid the confusion and ridicule that will result from skipping a version
> increment, I suggest you remember to cast your vote.
Since PHP6 existed then sorry but using it again is just
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> >
> > On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:21, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> >
> > > I also think that it would be reasonable to have two weeks for the
> votes
> > to
> > > come in, as https://wiki.php.n
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Sean Coates wrote:
> did you consider resetting the vote as the text was changed multiple times
> after the voting begun?
>
>
> It was reset.
>
> S
>
>
whoops, sorry.
then I'm really surprised the number of votes already in.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyr
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:21, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
> > I also think that it would be reasonable to have two weeks for the votes
> to
> > come in, as https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting states that "There'd be a
> > minimum of 2 weeks between wh
On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:21, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> I also think that it would be reasonable to have two weeks for the votes to
> come in, as https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting states that "There'd be a
> minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the language is brought
> up on this list and
> did you consider resetting the vote as the text was changed multiple times
> after the voting begun?
It was reset.
S
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> My sincerest apologies about all the mess earlier and the delay. Both me
> and Zeev are happy enough with the RFC, so the voting for this RFC has
> started (again). It shall end on 2014-07-30 (next Wednesday, a week’s tim
Somewhat unrelated to this vote in particular, but someone mentioned on
IRC that it would be cool to see votes chronologically so I wrote a
short JS snippet that does just that. In case anyone is interested for
archeological purposes:
https://gist.github.com/Seldaek/bc0ae0e2bf1617d71ed7
--
PH
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Brian Moon wrote (on 22/07/2014):
>
>>> I got the vibe that people weren't happy with the RFC, and that's why
>>> the vote was cancelled, so I was suggesting a way forward, but maybe I
>>> misread the situation.
>>
>>
>> I think that was 2 da
Brian Moon wrote (on 22/07/2014):
I got the vibe that people weren't happy with the RFC, and that's why
the vote was cancelled, so I was suggesting a way forward, but maybe I
misread the situation.
I think that was 2 days and many, many emails ago. The parties that
expressed an opinion on the
On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:21, Rowan Collins wrote:
> I got the vibe that people weren't happy with the RFC, and that's why the
> vote was cancelled, so I was suggesting a way forward, but maybe I misread
> the situation.
I cancelled it because Zeev’s edits took me by surprise. It was rather
hypo
I got the vibe that people weren't happy with the RFC, and that's why
the vote was cancelled, so I was suggesting a way forward, but maybe I
misread the situation.
I think that was 2 days and many, many emails ago. The parties that
expressed an opinion on the RFC which led to the vote being can
Zeev Suraski wrote (on 22/07/2014):
If I understood you correctly you seem to believe that we should aim
for consensus when it's pretty clear there isn't going to be one. I
can't see how shuffling the points around under topics will somehow
help us create such consensus. Knowing many of the pe
> On 22 ביול 2014, at 19:25, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> Zeev Suraski wrote (on 22/07/2014):
>> I think the way it's laid out right now makes sense. Let's not try to
>> sweep this under the carpet - we two mutually exclusive options and we
>> need to decide between them.
>
> How is laying out the ar
Zeev Suraski wrote (on 22/07/2014):
I think the way it's laid out right now makes sense. Let's not try to
sweep this under the carpet - we two mutually exclusive options and we
need to decide between them.
How is laying out the arguments more clearly "sweeping it under the
carpet"? The *outco
jf.me]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:56 PM
> > To: Rowan Collins
> > Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
> >
> > Maybe if I have some time I'll try to restructure the RFC.
>
> Please don&#x
On 22/07/14 15:30, Jonny Stirling wrote:
> PHP6 / 7 / whatever, does not exist, and will not exist (like I said) until
> official releases as the next major version are put out. Tis a pretty
> simple solution for a problem that does not actually exist in the present.
PHP6 existed - it was simply n
On 22 Jul 2014, at 15:51, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> You're welcome! But really, the glory belongs to Nikita - he rewrote this
> section (and moved it below the Case for 7, for whatever reasons :)
Actually, I moved it below the Case for 7, because I realised that most of the
case for PHP 6 is just
On 22 Jul 2014, at 15:48, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> Maybe if I have some time I'll try to restructure the RFC.
>
> Please don’t.
I was going to, but I’m actually happy with it now, so I won’t bother.
> To those who are saying 'let's bury it for now', I absolutely think we
> should go all the way
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:42 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Kris Craig; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
>
>
> On 22 Jul 2014, at 15:38, Zeev Surask
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:56 PM
> To: Rowan Collins
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
>
> Maybe if I have some time I'll try to restructure the RFC.
Please do
On 22 Jul 2014, at 15:38, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I made some more edits and I think the Case for 7 is ready.
>
> We're ready to go to a vote as early as tomorrow as far as I'm concerned…
I quite like what you’ve done to the PHP 6 section, it’s much nicer than it was
before, thanks!
With the R
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Brian Moon wrote:
> Or, (maybe this is controversial in itself), drop the entire thing.
>>
>> Until there is in fact, a next major version, what its name will be is
>> surely moot, and until there is a GA release (or at the earliest alphas /
>> beta test releases)
> -Original Message-
> From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:59 AM
> To: Michael Wallner
> Cc: Andrea Faulds; PHP Internals; Derick Rethans; Nikita Popov
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
>
>
&
Or, (maybe this is controversial in itself), drop the entire thing.
Until there is in fact, a next major version, what its name will be is
surely moot, and until there is a GA release (or at the earliest alphas /
beta test releases), there should be no such thing as a versioned /
numbered release
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2014, at 15:12, Jonny Stirling
> wrote:
>
> > Or, (maybe this is controversial in itself), drop the entire thing.
> >
> > Until there is in fact, a next major version, what its name will be is
> surely moot, and until there is a
On 22 Jul 2014, at 15:12, Jonny Stirling wrote:
> Or, (maybe this is controversial in itself), drop the entire thing.
>
> Until there is in fact, a next major version, what its name will be is surely
> moot, and until there is a GA release (or at the earliest alphas / beta test
> releases), t
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2014, at 14:27, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> Maybe if I have some time I’ll try to restructure the RFC.
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
>
Or, (maybe this is controversial in itself), drop the entire thing.
Until there is in
On 22 Jul 2014, at 14:27, Rowan Collins wrote:
> the RFC would be much better with a different structure. Currently, it's laid
> out in what you might call an "adversarial" style - arguments for one side,
> then arguments for the other; this doesn't lend itself well to summarising
> all the p
Andrea Faulds wrote (on 20/07/2014):
I’ve cancelled the vote because I don’t think the case for 6 is sufficiently
fleshed out. The RFC is now massively imbalanced in favour of 7, which isn’t
really fair to the 6 side, and I don’t think we can hold a vote while that’s
still the case.
I've onl
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2014 23:32, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 20 Jul 2014, at 22:28, Nikita Popov wrote:
> >
> > > After the vote has been started the RFC was edited by Zeev in order to
> strengthen the case for PHP 7. There is nothing wro
On 20 Jul 2014 23:32, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Jul 2014, at 22:28, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > After the vote has been started the RFC was edited by Zeev in order to
strengthen the case for PHP 7. There is nothing wrong with that, adding
additional arguments to an RFC is perfectly fine by
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> The removed paragraphs were actually the RFC’s ‘case for PHP 7’. As the
> champion for the PHP 7 case, I was 100.0% entitled to remove it as I
> thought it wasn’t doing a good job at presenting that case, and replace it
> with some real pro
On 21/07/14 08:41, Kris Craig wrote:
>> 1. The vote started with no real case for PHP 7 in there. I made
>> > it clear in past weeks I intended to write one, and said it would take
>> > time. The supposed ‘case for PHP 7’ that was added there by PHP 6
>> > proponents, is now turning out to
See below in red.
> It was not accidental and I said so almost immediately after Andrea sent
> the note to the list about the paragraphs being removed.
>
I didn't see that, my bad. The point I was trying to make is that,
whatever the explanation, I think you should be given the benefit of the
d
On Jul 20, 2014 11:13 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> >
> > On 20 Jul 2014, at 00:26, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >
> > > The poll is now open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote
> > >
> > > Voting shall end in a week’s time on 2014-07-27.
> >
> > I’ve can
See below in blue:
I feel compelled to voice just how extremely inappropriate it seems to me
to delete the other side's argument on an RFC without any consultation.
What I proposed was that Zeev and maintain the 7 argument and Andrea
maintain the 6 argument. This effectively smells like blatan
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > On 21 ביול 2014, at 00:29, Nikita Popov wrote:
> >
> > However at the same time a number of paragraphs were removed that were
> > arguing for PHP 6, at least in part. The only thing that was left in "The
> > case for PHP 6" was a single pa
> On 21 ביול 2014, at 00:29, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> However at the same time a number of paragraphs were removed that were
> arguing for PHP 6, at least in part. The only thing that was left in "The
> case for PHP 6" was a single paragraph, of which half was really just an
> explanation of the ge
> On 20 ביול 2014, at 18:40, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
> The argument for PHP 6 is very short and reads half-baked. The
> overwhelming majority of this very short section of the RFC is spent
> describing how naming the release “PHP 6” will be a problem, with a very
> wishy-washy conclusion that the
On 20 Jul 2014, at 22:28, Nikita Popov wrote:
> After the vote has been started the RFC was edited by Zeev in order to
> strengthen the case for PHP 7. There is nothing wrong with that, adding
> additional arguments to an RFC is perfectly fine by me.
>
> However at the same time a number of p
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> >
> > On 20 Jul 2014, at 00:26, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >
> > > The poll is now open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote
> > >
> > > Voting shall end in a week’s time on 2014-07-27.
> >
> > I’v
On 20 Jul 2014, at 22:13, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Huh what? This is like you weren't happy with the way how the vote was
> going so you cancelled it? What nonsense.
That is not why I cancelled the vote and I would appreciate it if people would
stop insinuating as much.
--
Andrea Faulds
http:/
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 20 Jul 2014, at 00:26, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> > The poll is now open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote
> >
> > Voting shall end in a week’s time on 2014-07-27.
>
> I’ve cancelled the vote because I don’t think the case for 6 is
> sufficien
On 20/07/14 16:55, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Voting shall end in a week’s time on 2014-07-27.
> I’ve cancelled the vote because I don’t think the case for 6 is sufficiently
> fleshed out. The RFC is now massively imbalanced in favour of 7, which isn’t
> really fair to the 6 side, and I don’t think
On Jul 20, 2014, at 8:39 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
> As for the PHP 7 section, this is by far the dominant part of the RFC. Both
> in terms of physical presence, but also points and counter-points.
>
> It also contains, IMO unnecessarily, light-hearted and jokey comments not
> befitting an RFC
> On 20 ביול 2014, at 18:51, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
>> I swear the PHP 6 section was much longer before. Did Zeev delete some of it?
>
> Zeev must have as the only person who edited it since was him.
>
> I’ve restored the Rationale section from before to “The Case for PHP 6”.
Yes it was me - but
On 20 Jul 2014, at 00:26, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> The poll is now open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote
>
> Voting shall end in a week’s time on 2014-07-27.
I’ve cancelled the vote because I don’t think the case for 6 is sufficiently
fleshed out. The RFC is now massively imbalanced in favou
On 20 Jul 2014, at 16:43, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 20 Jul 2014, at 16:39, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
>> It might be just me, but the whole RFC actually seems particularly
>> one-sided. The argument for PHP 6 is very short and reads half-baked. The
>> overwhelming majority of this very short s
On 20 Jul 2014, at 16:39, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> It might be just me, but the whole RFC actually seems particularly
> one-sided. The argument for PHP 6 is very short and reads half-baked. The
> overwhelming majority of this very short section of the RFC is spent
> describing how naming the rele
On 20 July 2014 00:26, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> It is finally time to settle this matter once and for all. What shall be
> the name of the next release of PHP: PHP 6 or PHP 7?
>
It might be just me, but the whole RFC actually seems particularly
one-sided. The argument for PHP 6 i
On 20/07/14 07:08, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I took the time to rewrite the case for PHP 7. It's a complete rewrite
> written by someone who actually believes that this is the right choice for
> us to pick :)
Is '6' really such an unlucky number? Wasn't Vista essentially Windows
6? ...
I don't have
On 20 Jul 2014, at 13:58, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I do recommend to everyone who voted before there were separate 'Case for
> PHP 6' and 'Case for PHP 7' to re-read the RFC one last time to see if it
> changes their mind…
I’d second this and say people should perhaps read older discussions too.
> > I'm sure people will have comments and may want to both improve the
> > case for 6 and 7 - so I do recommend we give it another extra week of
> > discussions to refine the RFC, and then restart the vote.
>
> I'd rather not put it off much longer, but people can change votes, so I
could
> extend
On 20 Jul 2014, at 07:08, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I took the time to rewrite the case for PHP 7. It's a complete rewrite
> written by someone who actually believes that this is the right choice for
> us to pick :)
Great, we actually have a case now!
> I'm sure people will have comments and may
I took the time to rewrite the case for PHP 7. It's a complete rewrite
written by someone who actually believes that this is the right choice for
us to pick :)
I'm sure people will have comments and may want to both improve the case
for 6 and 7 - so I do recommend we give it another extra week of
Andrea,
Please stop (pause) this vote. I told you I want to represent the
cars for PHP 7, and I told you it'll take a bit of time - and that was
before my city became under rocket fire..
There's no rush for this RFC - it can easily wait a week or even a few
more weeks if necessary.
I'll try to
61 matches
Mail list logo
