rfc:php6
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
rfc:php6 [2014/07/21 10:00] – redo php6 side nikic | rfc:php6 [2017/09/22 13:28] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
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 54: | Line 60: | ||
* 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. | * 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. | * 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 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 |
- | * While many people | + | * While many participants |
+ | * 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 63: | 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 ended 2014-07-30. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <doodle title=" | ||
+ | * PHP 6 | ||
+ | * PHP 7 | ||
+ | </ | ||
===== References ===== | ===== References ===== |
rfc/php6.1405936852.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 (external edit)