rfc:php6
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
rfc:php6 [2014/07/20 06:37] – zeev | rfc:php6 [2014/07/29 23:42] – Closed vote, marked accepted ajf | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== PHP RFC: Name of Next Release of PHP ====== | ====== PHP RFC: Name of Next Release of PHP ====== | ||
* Version: 2.0 | * Version: 2.0 | ||
- | * Date: 2014-07-05 (latest 2014-07-20) | + | * Date: 2014-07-05 (latest 2014-07-22) |
- | * Author: Andrea Faulds < | + | * Authors: Andrea Faulds < |
- | * Status: | + | * Status: |
* First Published at: http:// | * First Published at: http:// | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
There has been some debate over what the name of the next major release of PHP, to succeed the PHP 5.x series, should be called. This RFC is an attempt to settle the matter once and for all. | There has been some debate over what the name of the next major release of PHP, to succeed the PHP 5.x series, should be called. This RFC is an attempt to settle the matter once and for all. | ||
- | Unlike most RFCs, this deals with a release process issue, and not with extending PHP itself. | + | This RFC proposes that the next major version of PHP shall be named either PHP 6 or PHP 7, based on the outcome of this vote. In the following arguments for both sides are presented. |
- | ===== Proposal | + | ===== Historical context |
- | This RFC proposes | + | The reason why this question even comes up, is that there has been a previous attempt at a new major version, which was started in 2005 and abandoned in 2010 due to difficulties in the Unicode implementation. Apart from language-integrated Unicode support, most features added for that version were integrated |
- | ===== The Case for PHP 6 ===== | + | This previous attempt at a new major version |
- | + | ||
- | PHP 6 is the most obvious name choice as it follows the existing numbering scheme. Do we really need to break from it? | + | |
- | + | ||
- | The main argument against this is that there was previously | + | |
===== The Case for PHP 7 ===== | ===== The Case for PHP 7 ===== | ||
Line 27: | Line 23: | ||
==== No good reasons NOT to skip version 6 ==== | ==== No good reasons NOT to skip version 6 ==== | ||
+ | |||
Regarding the first element, it seems that many people are concerned that if we skip a version, we somehow cause confusion or break away from our versioning scheme. | Regarding the first element, it seems that many people are concerned that if we skip a version, we somehow cause confusion or break away from our versioning scheme. | ||
Line 37: | Line 34: | ||
There are several reasons of why we shouldn' | There are several reasons of why we shouldn' | ||
- | * First and foremost, PHP 6 already existed and it was something completely different. | + | * First and foremost, PHP 6 already existed and it was something completely different. |
- | * While it' | + | * While it's true that the other PHP 6 never reached |
- | * PHP 6, the original PHP 6, has been discussed in detail in many PHP conferences. | + | * PHP 6, the original PHP 6, has been discussed in detail in many PHP conferences. |
- | * There' | + | * PHP 6 was widely known not only within the Internals community, but around the PHP community at large. |
- | * Unlike the ' | + | * There' |
- | * Version 6 is generally associated with failure in the world of dynamic languages. | + | * Unlike the ' |
- | * It's actually associated with failure also outside the dynamic language world - MySQL 6 also existed but never released. | + | * Skipping versions isn't unprecedented or uncommon in both open source projects and commercial products. |
- | To summarize, PHP 6 is a living memory in the minds of many developers | + | * Version 6 is generally associated with failure in the world of dynamic languages. |
+ | * The case for 6 is mostly a rebuttal of some of the points above, but without providing a strong case for why we *shouldn' | ||
- | Other than having good reasons to skip 6 and no reasons not to, there are also some minor reasons of why PHP 7 is actually | + | As a special non serious bonus, 7 is perceived as a lucky number in both the Western world and Chinese culture. |
- | * Skipping versions isn't unprecedented or uncommon in both open source projects and commercial products. | + | ==== Summary ==== |
- | * 7 is perceived as a lucky number in both the Western world and Chinese culture. | + | |
+ | Version 6 is already taken by a highly publicized project that is in the minds of a very large chunk of PHP developers, internals and general PHP community alike. | ||
+ | |||
+ | We risk nothing by calling it PHP 7. We risk confusion and negative perception if we insist on reusing 6 for a completely different project. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Taking a risk that stands to yield absolutely no reward is not a good strategy. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== The Case for PHP 6 ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * According to our current release process and semantic versioning, the next major version after PHP 5 should be PHP 6. Unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary, we should not abandon our current version numbering scheme. | ||
+ | * While there exists a number of resources about the previous attempt at a PHP 6 release, these will be quickly displaced once PHP 6 is actually released. This applies both to blog posts, which will be (and partially already are) displaced by newer content, and books, which will receive negative reviews because they do not actually cover the version of PHP they claim to cover. | ||
+ | * By now there are also many resources which refer to the next major version as "PHP 6", without having any relation to the abandoned previous attempt. This includes anything from blog posts and discussions about features for the upcoming version, to RFCs and design documents in this wiki. Calling the next major version "PHP 7" instead will cause confusion in this direction. | ||
+ | * In OTR discussions about a new major version, it is nearly always referred to as "PHP 6". Given that the current version is PHP 5, people understandably jump to the conclusion that the next one will be "PHP 6" and refer to it as such. In the minds of many devs "PHP 6" is already deeply ingrained as the name of the next major. | ||
+ | * While many participants on the internals mailing list were involved in the original PHP 6 effort and as such are acutely aware of its existence, the larger PHP community is not. While discussing this RFC with various developers, many did not really understand why this was even a question, because they were no more than vaguely aware that there was something like PHP 6 in the past. As such wrong expectations due to confusion about the version number should be minimal. | ||
+ | * While there has certainly been precedent for missing version numbers, this usually occurs in the context of larger changes to the versioning scheme. For example, when Java went from 1.4 to 5.0, it's clear that the numbering system changed. The existing precedent suggests going to PHP 2016 or something equally distinct, rather than just skipping a version. (No, this is not a serious suggestion.) | ||
===== Vote ===== | ===== Vote ===== | ||
Line 56: | Line 68: | ||
A 50%+1 (simple majority) vote with two options, "PHP 6" and "PHP 7", is proposed. If more votes are for PHP 6, that shall be the name of the next major release of PHP. Otherwise, if more of votes are for PHP 7, that shall be its name. | A 50%+1 (simple majority) vote with two options, "PHP 6" and "PHP 7", is proposed. If more votes are for PHP 6, that shall be the name of the next major release of PHP. Otherwise, if more of votes are for PHP 7, that shall be its name. | ||
- | Voting started 2014-07-20 and ends 2014-07-27. | + | Voting started 2014-07-20 |
+ | |||
+ | Voting restarted 2014-07-23 afresh | ||
- | <doodle title=" | + | <doodle title=" |
* PHP 6 | * PHP 6 | ||
* PHP 7 | * PHP 7 |
rfc/php6.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 by 127.0.0.1