rfc:php6

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
rfc:php6 [2014/07/23 13:36]
ajf Put to vote. Again.
rfc:php6 [2014/07/29 23:42]
ajf Closed vote, marked accepted
Line 3: Line 3:
   * Date: 2014-07-05 (latest 2014-07-22)   * Date: 2014-07-05 (latest 2014-07-22)
   * Authors: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>   * Authors: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>
-  * Status: In Voting+  * Status: Accepted (Name is PHP 7)
   * First Published at: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6   * First Published at: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6
  
Line 62: Line 62:
   * 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.   * 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 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'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, this usually occurs in the context of larger changes to the versioning schemeFor example, when Java went from 1.4 to 5.0it'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.)
-  * Choosing a language version based on "lucky numbers" or other superstition seems questionable. +
  
 ===== Vote ===== ===== Vote =====
Line 72: Line 70:
 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.+Voting restarted 2014-07-23 afresh and ended 2014-07-30.
  
-<doodle title="Shall the name of PHP NEXT be PHP 6, or PHP 7?" auth="user" voteType="single" closed="false">+<doodle title="Shall the name of PHP NEXT be PHP 6, or PHP 7?" auth="user" voteType="single" closed="true">
    * PHP 6    * PHP 6
    * PHP 7    * PHP 7
rfc/php6.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 (external edit)