Everything

php

[VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP (again)

php.internals

Andrew Faulds

12 years ago

Good afternoon,

My sincerest apologies about all the mess earlier and the delay. Both me and Zeev are happy enough with the RFC, so the voting for this RFC has started (again). It shall end on 2014-07-30 (next Wednesday, a week’s time) and it won’t be cancelled this time.

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote

Thanks!

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/

Jordi Boggiano

12 years ago

Somewhat unrelated to this vote in particular, but someone mentioned on
IRC that it would be cool to see votes chronologically so I wrote a
short JS snippet that does just that. In case anyone is interested for
archeological purposes:

https://gist.github.com/Seldaek/bc0ae0e2bf1617d71ed7

Ferenc Kovacs

12 years ago

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

> Good afternoon,
>
> My sincerest apologies about all the mess earlier and the delay. Both me
> and Zeev are happy enough with the RFC, so the voting for this RFC has
> started (again). It shall end on 2014-07-30 (next Wednesday, a week’s time)
> and it won’t be cancelled this time.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
>

did you consider resetting the vote as the text was changed multiple times
after the voting begun?
I also think that it would be reasonable to have two weeks for the votes to
come in, as https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting states that "There'd be a
minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the language is brought
up on this list and when it's voted on is required." and while the code
impact for this rfc is really small (modifying the version numbers), but it
is an important decision for the project and for the language.
sorry if it feels being too bureaucratic

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Sean Coates

12 years ago

> did you consider resetting the vote as the text was changed multiple times
> after the voting begun?

It was reset.

S

Ferenc Kovacs

12 years ago

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Sean Coates <sean@seancoates.com> wrote:

> did you consider resetting the vote as the text was changed multiple times
> after the voting begun?
>
>
> It was reset.
>
> S
>
>

whoops, sorry.
then I'm really surprised the number of votes already in.

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Andrew Faulds

12 years ago

On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:21, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:

> I also think that it would be reasonable to have two weeks for the votes to
> come in, as https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting states that "There'd be a
> minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the language is brought
> up on this list and when it's voted on is required." and while the code
> impact for this rfc is really small (modifying the version numbers), but it
> is an important decision for the project and for the language.
> sorry if it feels being too bureaucratic

That refers to the minimum time for discussion, I don’t think we need 2 weeks for a vote. In a week’s time when the vote would end, if it looks like not enough people have voted, I suppose it could be extended.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/

Ferenc Kovacs

12 years ago

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
> On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:21, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I also think that it would be reasonable to have two weeks for the votes
> to
> > come in, as https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting states that "There'd be a
> > minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the language is
> brought
> > up on this list and when it's voted on is required." and while the code
> > impact for this rfc is really small (modifying the version numbers), but
> it
> > is an important decision for the project and for the language.
> > sorry if it feels being too bureaucratic
>
> That refers to the minimum time for discussion, I don’t think we need 2
> weeks for a vote. In a week’s time when the vote would end, if it looks
> like not enough people have voted, I suppose it could be extended.

argh, you I right, the relevant part is "The voting has minimal period of 1
week, which can be extended when circumstances warrant it.", so one week is
fine by the rules.

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Kris Craig

12 years ago

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:21, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I also think that it would be reasonable to have two weeks for the
> votes
> > to
> > > come in, as https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting states that "There'd be a
> > > minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the language is
> > brought
> > > up on this list and when it's voted on is required." and while the code
> > > impact for this rfc is really small (modifying the version numbers),
> but
> > it
> > > is an important decision for the project and for the language.
> > > sorry if it feels being too bureaucratic
> >
> > That refers to the minimum time for discussion, I don’t think we need 2
> > weeks for a vote. In a week’s time when the vote would end, if it looks
> > like not enough people have voted, I suppose it could be extended.
>
>
> argh, you I right, the relevant part is "The voting has minimal period of 1
> week, which can be extended when circumstances warrant it.", so one week is
> fine by the rules.
>
> --
> Ferenc Kovács
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>

Wow, looks like the PHP 7 votes are dominating so far.  If you want to
avoid the confusion and ridicule that will result from skipping a version
increment, I suggest you remember to cast your vote.

Editorial aside, I'm glad that the two sides were able to come together and
get this to a vote finally.

--Kris

Lester Caine

12 years ago

On 23/07/14 19:23, Kris Craig wrote:

> Wow, looks like the PHP 7 votes are dominating so far.  If you want to
> avoid the confusion and ridicule that will result from skipping a version
> increment, I suggest you remember to cast your vote.

Since PHP6 existed then sorry but using it again is just as confusing ;)

There will be ridicule either way, so that is no reason for reusing a
version number again. We just tag PHP6 exactly as it is documented -
closed in 2010 - a fact that seems to have been dropped again from the
arguments in the RFC :(

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

Andi Gutmans

12 years ago

> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:21, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I also think that it would be reasonable to have two weeks for the
>> votes
>>> to
>>>> come in, as https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting states that "There'd be a
>>>> minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the language is
>>> brought
>>>> up on this list and when it's voted on is required." and while the code
>>>> impact for this rfc is really small (modifying the version numbers),
>> but
>>> it
>>>> is an important decision for the project and for the language.
>>>> sorry if it feels being too bureaucratic
>>>
>>> That refers to the minimum time for discussion, I don’t think we need 2
>>> weeks for a vote. In a week’s time when the vote would end, if it looks
>>> like not enough people have voted, I suppose it could be extended.
>>
>>
>> argh, you I right, the relevant part is "The voting has minimal period of 1
>> week, which can be extended when circumstances warrant it.", so one week is
>> fine by the rules.
>>
>> --
>> Ferenc Kovács
>> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>
> Wow, looks like the PHP 7 votes are dominating so far.  If you want to
> avoid the confusion and ridicule that will result from skipping a version
> increment, I suggest you remember to cast your vote.

Let's keep this clean and not start a 100 email thread restating what both view points have already said many times or do an artificial rally.

Andrew Faulds

12 years ago

On 23 Jul 2014, at 14:38, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

> My sincerest apologies about all the mess earlier and the delay. Both me and Zeev are happy enough with the RFC, so the voting for this RFC has started (again). It shall end on 2014-07-30 (next Wednesday, a week’s time) and it won’t be cancelled this time.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote

The vote has ended. By 58 votes to 24, the next major release of PHP, to succeed the 5.x series, shall be named PHP 7.

Hopefully this is the end of the matter and we can get onto matters of implementation and features, rather than naming. :)

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/

Julien Pauli

12 years ago

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
> On 23 Jul 2014, at 14:38, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> > My sincerest apologies about all the mess earlier and the delay. Both me
> and Zeev are happy enough with the RFC, so the voting for this RFC has
> started (again). It shall end on 2014-07-30 (next Wednesday, a week’s time)
> and it won’t be cancelled this time.
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote
>
> The vote has ended. By 58 votes to 24, the next major release of PHP, to
> succeed the 5.x series, shall be named PHP 7.
>
> Hopefully this is the end of the matter and we can get onto matters of
> implementation and features, rather than naming. :)
>

Finally, back to interesting stuff :-)

Julien.P

Philip Sturgeon

12 years ago

Good stuff everyone. Glad the vote went through.

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net> wrote: