rfc:php6
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
rfc:php6 [2014/07/21 10:13] – nikic | rfc:php6 [2014/07/23 13:53] – lucky numbers are no longer mentioned nikic | ||
---|---|---|---|
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 < |
- | * Contributors: | + | * Status: |
- | * Status: | + | |
* First Published at: http:// | * First Published at: http:// | ||
Line 38: | Line 37: | ||
* While it's true that the other PHP 6 never reached General Availability, | * While it's true that the other PHP 6 never reached General Availability, | ||
* 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. | ||
+ | * PHP 6 was widely known not only within the Internals community, but around the PHP community at large. | ||
* There' | * There' | ||
* Unlike the ' | * Unlike the ' | ||
+ | * Skipping versions isn't unprecedented or uncommon in both open source projects and commercial products. | ||
+ | * 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' | ||
- | To summarize, PHP 6 is a living memory | + | As a special non serious bonus, 7 is perceived as a lucky number |
- | Other than having good reasons to skip 6 and no reasons not to, there are also some minor reasons | + | ==== Summary ==== |
+ | |||
+ | Version | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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 | ||
- | * Skipping versions isn't unprecedented or uncommon in both open source projects and commercial products. | ||
- | * 7 is perceived as a lucky number in both the Western world and Chinese culture. | ||
- | * Version 6 is generally associated with failure in the world of dynamic languages. | ||
===== The Case for PHP 6 ===== | ===== The Case for PHP 6 ===== | ||
Line 57: | Line 63: | ||
* 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 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, the examples given in the previous section involve larger changes to versioning. When going from version 1.4 to 5.0 it's a clear change in the versioning scheme and not just a skipped version. The existing precedent suggests going to PHP 2016 or something equally distinct, rather than skipping a version. (No, this is not a serious suggestion.) | * While there has certainly been precedent for missing version numbers, the examples given in the previous section involve larger changes to versioning. When going from version 1.4 to 5.0 it's a clear change in the versioning scheme and not just a skipped version. The existing precedent suggests going to PHP 2016 or something equally distinct, rather than skipping a version. (No, this is not a serious suggestion.) | ||
- | * Choosing a language version based on "lucky numbers" | ||
- | |||
===== Vote ===== | ===== Vote ===== | ||
Line 65: | Line 69: | ||
Voting started 2014-07-20 but was cancelled. | Voting started 2014-07-20 but was cancelled. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Voting restarted 2014-07-23 afresh and ends 2014-07-30. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <doodle title=" | ||
+ | * PHP 6 | ||
+ | * PHP 7 | ||
+ | </ | ||
===== References ===== | ===== References ===== |
rfc/php6.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 by 127.0.0.1