hi Zeev,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> We’ve had some discussions about it during the version name & phpng RFC
> processes, and now that 5.6.0 is behind us – I think it’s time to get a
> more concrete game plan for PHP 7.0.
>
>
>
> I drafted an RFC that prop
If we aren't able to fix a low-level problem in a year we most probably
won't be able to fix it in two as well.
Also, the closer we are to release, the more feedback we get, and the more
bugs are able to fix.
Delaying release would just reduce the attention of the users.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Tue,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 05:20 PM, Tjerk Meesters wrote:
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2014, at 01:24, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/14/2014 10:14 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
> IMO, AST, INT64, NG, Uniforme variables style is enough for a new
>
On 10/14/2014 05:20 PM, Tjerk Meesters wrote:
>
> On 15 Oct 2014, at 01:24, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2014 10:14 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
IMO, AST, INT64, NG, Uniforme variables style is enough for a new
marjor version.. why we still need to wait?
>>>
>>> We don'
On 15 Oct 2014, at 01:24, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 10:14 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> IMO, AST, INT64, NG, Uniforme variables style is enough for a new
>>> marjor version.. why we still need to wait?
>>
>> We don't need to just "wait", as sit and do nothing. We need to
I like the 1 year timeline. It is an aggressive but achievable goal.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> We’ve had some discussions about it during the version name & phpng RFC
> processes, and now that 5.6.0 is behind us – I think it’s time to get a
> more concre
On 10/14/2014 10:14 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> IMO, AST, INT64, NG, Uniforme variables style is enough for a new
>> marjor version.. why we still need to wait?
>
> We don't need to just "wait", as sit and do nothing. We need to allocate
> time for other features.
There are also quite a
Hi!
> IMO, AST, INT64, NG, Uniforme variables style is enough for a new
> marjor version.. why we still need to wait?
We don't need to just "wait", as sit and do nothing. We need to allocate
time for other features.
> New features which missed PHP7.0, they can target at 7.1 instead.
Only featu
On 14/10/14 13:59, Zeev Suraski wrote:
That depends on the feature in question. The only features/changes that
simply cannot make it into non-major releases are ones that break
compatibility. Ideally there shouldn't be too many of those, regardless of
our release timeline - to make the lives o
On 14 October 2014 09:46, Julien Pauli wrote:
>
> At the starting point (so, something like one year ago), we had many
> ideas to add to the new major PHP and had a compute of at least two
> years development.
>
If we allow two years for development there will be too many changes
to make adoption
> -Original Message-
> From: Rowan Collins [mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 3:30 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: PHP 7.0 timeline
>
> Jonny Stirling wrote (on 14/10/2014):
> > At the same t
Jonny Stirling wrote (on 14/10/2014):
At the same time, which I think has been discussed before, perhaps
it's time for a regular major release cycle (regular as in x (2-3?)
years) so that there is a timescale for when new changes (or ones that
might be intentionally or unintentionally missed /
On 14/10/14 11:06, Jonny Stirling wrote:
> At the same time, which I think has been discussed before, perhaps it's
> time for a regular major release cycle (regular as in x (2-3?) years) so
> that there is a timescale for when new changes (or ones that might be
> intentionally or unintentionally mi
Hi:
On 14/10/14 10:48, Julien Pauli wrote:
Makes sense, however, we should absolutely be sure to integrate every
BC idea we'd like to into 7.0
If not , one will have to wait something like 10 years if we don't
allow BC breaks in 7.X minors.
I have to agree with Zeev that we shouldn't wait for t
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> At the starting point (so, something like one year ago), we had many ideas
>> to
>> add to the new major PHP and had a compute of at least two years
>> development.
>
> Not every idea we have needs to go into 7.0. Specifically, only ideas t
I think 1 year is reasonable timeline.
We still have 5 month for active development and implementation of new
ideas.
I think https://wiki.php.net/ideas/php6/engine is a bit outdated.
I'm not sure if anyone are going to work on proposals from 2009 (even if
they are great).
It would be great to def
Hey:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> we should freeze new features by the end of this year. then we could
>> release 7 asap
>
> I think this is way too aggressive. This means basically next to nothing
> that is not already has prepared RC gets into 7, since only d
Hi!
> we should freeze new features by the end of this year. then we could
> release 7 asap
I think this is way too aggressive. This means basically next to nothing
that is not already has prepared RC gets into 7, since only discussion +
vote would take at least a month for anything substantial,
> At the starting point (so, something like one year ago), we had many ideas
> to
> add to the new major PHP and had a compute of at least two years
> development.
Not every idea we have needs to go into 7.0. Specifically, only ideas that
require compatibility breakage have to go into 7.0, others
hi Zeev,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> We’ve had some discussions about it during the version name & phpng RFC
> processes, and now that 5.6.0 is behind us – I think it’s time to get a
> more concrete game plan for PHP 7.0.
>
>
>
> I drafted an RFC that prop
Hi!
> do you remember how PHP6 dies?
I do. We failed to implement proper Unicode support. How is it relevant now?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsu
And:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Julien Pauli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>> Hey:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We’ve had some discussions about it during the version name & phpng RFC
>>> processes, and
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Julien Pauli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>> Hey:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We’ve had some discussions about it during the version name & phpng RFC
>>> processes, and now t
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> Hey:
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> We’ve had some discussions about it during the version name & phpng RFC
>> processes, and now that 5.6.0 is behind us – I think it’s time to get a
>> more concr
Hey:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> We’ve had some discussions about it during the version name & phpng RFC
> processes, and now that 5.6.0 is behind us – I think it’s time to get a
> more concrete game plan for PHP 7.0.
>
>
>
> I drafted an RFC that proposes
25 matches
Mail list logo
