Everything

php

Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » PHP 5.5 or 6.0 »

PHP 5.5 or 6.0

php.internals

Derick Rethans

21 years ago

Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else than 5.1
in order to have different version numbers. Although the name PHP 5.5
was mentioned before, I do think we should call it PHP 6.0. As the
Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going with PHP 6.0 also
allows us to be a little less strict with breaking BC in the cases where
that might be useful for the Unicode support.

I took the freedom to commit this change to CVS, as I needed already
different version numbers for the different versions of PHP that I
install locally. If discussion results that we need to rename it to
something else, that's ofcourse perfectly fine.

regards,
Derick

--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Jani Taskinen

21 years ago

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Derick Rethans wrote:

> Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else than 5.1
> in order to have different version numbers. Although the name PHP 5.5
> was mentioned before, I do think we should call it PHP 6.0. As the
> Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going with PHP 6.0 also
> allows us to be a little less strict with breaking BC in the cases where
> that might be useful for the Unicode support.

+1 and can we now also drop PHP_5_0 branch? :)

--Jani

Sebastian Bergmann

21 years ago

Derick Rethans schrieb:

> I do think we should call it PHP 6.0

+1

--
Sebastian Bergmann                      http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69

David Zülke

21 years ago

6.0 if the Namespaces patch makes it in, 5.5 with Unicode only? ;)

- David

Weyert de Boer

21 years ago

Hi

>6.0 if the Namespaces patch makes it in, 5.5 with Unicode only? ;)
>
>

Namespaces patch is a patch so it's fine for version 5.5, if you would
ask me.
I would see the unicode support as a bigger step forward.

--
Yours,

Weyert de Boer (wdb@innerfuse.biz)
innerfuse*

http://www.innerfuse.biz/

David Zülke

21 years ago

I was just kidding. I too consider Unicode support a very drastic change
that deserves a new major version number. I'd like to see Namespaces support
in by then, too, though. I really think PHP needs it. These two "features"
are the only things PHP needs desperately, but cannot deliver.

- David

Derick Rethans

21 years ago

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Weyert de Boer wrote:

> >6.0 if the Namespaces patch makes it in, 5.5 with Unicode only? ;)
>
> Namespaces patch is a patch so it's fine for version 5.5, if you would
> ask me. I would see the unicode support as a bigger step forward.

I'm not sure what you guys are discussing here, but it's definitely not
up to any non-contributor to decide which version number we pick. And
making it dependable on whether some patch goes in or not doesn't make
sense at all.

Derick

--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Weyert de Boer

21 years ago

Hi

>I'm not sure what you guys are discussing here, but it's definitely not
>up to any non-contributor to decide which version number we pick. And
>making it dependable on whether some patch goes in or not doesn't make
>sense at all.
>
>

Such a kind way of response on your site, I won't even consider anymore
to share my contribution.

--
Yours,

Weyert de Boer (wdb@innerfuse.biz)
innerfuse*

http://www.innerfuse.biz/

Andrey Hristov

21 years ago

Quoting Weyert de Boer <wdb@innerfuse.biz>:

> Hi
>
>> I'm not sure what you guys are discussing here, but it's definitely
>> not up to any non-contributor to decide which version number we
>> pick. And making it dependable on whether some patch goes in or not
>> doesn't make sense at all.
>>
> Such a kind way of response on your site, I won't even consider anymore
> to share my contribution.

Don't get offended, Derick is a nice guy :)

> -- Yours,
>
> Weyert de Boer (wdb@innerfuse.biz)
> innerfuse*
>

Andrey

Pierre-Alain Joye

21 years ago

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:03:28 +0200 (CEST)
derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Weyert de Boer wrote:
>
> > >6.0 if the Namespaces patch makes it in, 5.5 with Unicode
> > >only? ;)
> >
> > Namespaces patch is a patch so it's fine for version 5.5, if
> > you would ask me. I would see the unicode support as a bigger
> > step forward.
>
> I'm not sure what you guys are discussing here, but it's
> definitely not up to any non-contributor to decide which version
> number we pick. And making it dependable on whether some patch
> goes in or not doesn't make sense at all.

A minimum of respect does not cost anything. The author of this
patch invest a lot of time in it.

A major version increment can (always?) depend on what it will have
in. It can be a patch, a new extension or a deep change like
unicode.

Regards,

--Pierre

Weyert de Boer

21 years ago

>A minimum of respect does not cost anything. The author of this
>patch invest a lot of time in it.
>
>

Oh well, one of the reasons why the patch for the parser won't be
available, no faster parser for PHP. Neither the other stuff I was
working on, will just use for in my own compiles.

>A major version increment can (always?) depend on what it will have
>in. It can be a patch, a new extension or a deep change like
>unicode.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Pierre
>
>
>

--
Yours,

Weyert de Boer (wdb@innerfuse.biz)
innerfuse*

http://www.innerfuse.biz/

Pierre-Alain Joye

21 years ago

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:41:07 +0200 (CEST)
derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:

> Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else
> than 5.1 in order to have different version numbers. Although the
> name PHP 5.5 was mentioned before, I do think we should call it
> PHP 6.0. As the Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going
> with PHP 6.0 also allows us to be a little less strict with
> breaking BC in the cases where that might be useful for the
> Unicode support.
>
> I took the freedom to commit this change to CVS, as I needed
> already different version numbers for the different versions of
> PHP that I install locally. If discussion results that we need to
> rename it to something else, that's ofcourse perfectly fine.

I have no special oppinions on php 5.5 or 6.0.

But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without unicode,
namespace), and 6.0.

I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we want
in or not. So I may waste less time than before.

--Pierre

Derick Rethans

21 years ago

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

> But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without unicode,
> namespace), and 6.0.
>
> I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we want
> in or not. So I may waste less time than before.

I see it as:
4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.

Derick

--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Pierre-Alain Joye

21 years ago

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:47:50 +0200 (CEST)
derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
>
> > But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without
> > unicode, namespace), and 6.0.
> >
> > I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we
> > want in or not. So I may waste less time than before.
>
> I see it as:
> 4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
> 5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
> 6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.

That sounds basically good to me.

My small thoughts:

5.1.x - bug fixes _only_
5.x   - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
xmlwriter)
6.0   - to define, for now we have two candidates,
unicode for sure, namespace to be discussed/approved/
whatever

Regards,

--Pierre

David Zülke

21 years ago

> 6.0   - to define, for now we have two candidates,
>         unicode for sure, namespace to be discussed/approved/
>         whatever

How 'bout PIMP for 6.0, Pierre? *hint hint* ;)

- David

Jessie Hernandez

21 years ago

I am not familiar with PIMP, but I would not get it in 6.0 until we have
HOES (HTML Output Extension Server) complete. Then we can start on the
client(s) for 6.1 :-).

--
Jessie


"David Zülke" <dz@bitxtender.com> wrote in message
news:C2.70.04646.FEB88F24@pb1.pair.com...

Darrell Brogdon

21 years ago

I think by "client(s)" you mean JOHNS (Justified Output with
Heuristic Notifications Server).

On Aug 9, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Jessie Hernandez wrote:

> I am not familiar with PIMP, but I would not get it in 6.0 until we
> have
> HOES (HTML Output Extension Server) complete. Then we can start on the
> client(s) for 6.1 :-).
>
>
> --
> Jessie
>
>
> "David Zülke" <dz@bitxtender.com> wrote in message
> news:C2.70.04646.FEB88F24@pb1.pair.com...
>
>>> 6.0   - to define, for now we have two candidates,
>>>         unicode for sure, namespace to be discussed/approved/
>>>         whatever
>>>
>>
>> How 'bout PIMP for 6.0, Pierre? *hint hint* ;)
>>
>> - David
>>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

Darrell Brogdon
darrell@brogdon.net
http://darrell.brogdon.net

Andrei Zmievski

21 years ago

Bitch, where are my page views?

-Andrei

On Aug 9, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Darrell Brogdon wrote:

Derick Rethans

21 years ago

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:47:50 +0200 (CEST)
> derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> >
> > > But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without
> > > unicode, namespace), and 6.0.
> > >
> > > I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we
> > > want in or not. So I may waste less time than before.
> >
> > I see it as:
> > 4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
> > 5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
> > 6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.
>
> That sounds basically good to me.
>
> My small thoughts:
>
> 5.1.x - bug fixes _only_
> 5.x   - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
>         xmlwriter)

I don't think we should be going with another 5.x release as we've
plenty of stuff to do for 6.0, gd updates/merges should go to 5.1.x too.
If we want to include xmlwriter at all in the default distribution is
another discussion. (So that should go to another thread IMO).

regards,
Derick

--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Pierre-Alain Joye

21 years ago

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:02:47 +0200 (CEST)
Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:47:50 +0200 (CEST)
> > derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> > >
> > > > But I have some about what we will do in php 5.x (without
> > > > unicode, namespace), and 6.0.
> > > >
> > > > I like to see once that we clearly and loudly define what we
> > > > want in or not. So I may waste less time than before.
> > >
> > > I see it as:
> > > 4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
> > > 5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
> > > 6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.
> >
> > That sounds basically good to me.
> >
> > My small thoughts:
> >
> > 5.1.x - bug fixes _only_
> > 5.x   - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
> >         xmlwriter)
>
> I don't think we should be going with another 5.x release as
> we've plenty of stuff to do for 6.0, gd updates/merges should go
> to 5.1.x too.

I'm not sure that a merge fits in 5.1.x, the amount of changes are
relatively big and are far away from bug fixes.

> If we want to include xmlwriter at all in the
> default distribution is another discussion. (So that should go to
> another thread IMO).

The discussion is already done and we agreed. It did not make it in
5.1 for various reasons. I only stated two of my todos here.

Regards,

--Pierre

Derick Rethans

21 years ago

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

> > If we want to include xmlwriter at all in the
> > default distribution is another discussion. (So that should go to
> > another thread IMO).
>
> The discussion is already done and we agreed. It did not make it in
> 5.1 for various reasons. I only stated two of my todos here.

I'd like to see some thread on that, as I definitely never saw anything
like that here.

Derick

Wez Furlong

21 years ago

On 8/9/05, Pierre-Alain Joye <pierre@dotgeek.org> wrote:

> 5.x   - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
>         xmlwriter)

This is what PECL is for.  We're trying to move stuff out of the core
so that these kinds of updates are easier for everyone to work on and
use.

--Wez.

Lukas Smith

21 years ago

Wez Furlong wrote:

> On 8/9/05, Pierre-Alain Joye <pierre@dotgeek.org> wrote:
>
>>5.x   - small additions (in my case, gd updates and merge,
>>        xmlwriter)
>
>
> This is what PECL is for.  We're trying to move stuff out of the core
> so that these kinds of updates are easier for everyone to work on and
> use.

As a matter of fact why dont we take the chance of a new major version
to take a novel approach.
Lets decide what PHP should have by default, start off with an empty
list of extensions and include all the necessary extensions from PECL
that fulfill these needs (and put anything missing on the todo list for
6.1).

regards,
Lukas

Ilia A.

21 years ago

Derick Rethans wrote:

> I see it as:
> 4.4 - no new features, no new additions. Just bugfixes.
> 5.1 - no new major features, just smaller additions.
> 6.0 - brand new experimental stuff.

This breakdown looks good, although it'd be nice to quantify just what
kind of "smaller additions" are acceptable for 5.1 branch.

Ilia

Andi Gutmans

21 years ago

Hi Ilia,

I think it's hard to define ahead of time, but usually I prefer allowing
non-BC breaking and non-infrastructure changes, for example, a new
function, a new optional parameter to a function, some minor functionality...
If it's a change in the infrastructure of PHP, then chances are that a mini
release is not good enough for testing...

Andi

At 10:07 AM 8/9/2005 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

Sara Golemon

21 years ago

> Now that we branched it's time to rename HEAD to something else than 5.1
> in order to have different version numbers. Although the name PHP 5.5
> was mentioned before, I do think we should call it PHP 6.0. As the
> Unicode support is quite a drastic change. Going with PHP 6.0 also
> allows us to be a little less strict with breaking BC in the cases where
> that might be useful for the Unicode support.
>

+1 for 6.0

Andi Gutmans

21 years ago

I think Unicode warrants a major version. I'd go with PHP 6 and aim to
release it before Perl 6 :)
From judging by a Perl 6 talk we attended at OSCON, that might actually be
a realistic goal.

Andi

Pierre-Alain Joye

21 years ago

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:25:27 -0700
andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans) wrote:

> I think Unicode warrants a major version. I'd go with PHP 6 and
> aim to release it before Perl 6 :)
>  From judging by a Perl 6 talk we attended at OSCON, that might
> actually be a realistic goal.

No rush please... Better after and better than before and half
backed :-D

--Pierre

George Schlossnagle

21 years ago

On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:

> I think Unicode warrants a major version. I'd go with PHP 6 and aim
> to release it before Perl 6 :)
> From judging by a Perl 6 talk we attended at OSCON, that might
> actually be a realistic goal.

I think that's more than a 'might'.

George

Marcus Börger

21 years ago

Hello George,

Tuesday, August 9, 2005, 9:48:22 PM, you wrote:

> On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:

>> I think Unicode warrants a major version. I'd go with PHP 6 and aim
>> to release it before Perl 6 :)
>> From judging by a Perl 6 talk we attended at OSCON, that might
>> actually be a realistic goal.

> I think that's more than a 'might'

They nowadays even have folks that do not stick to their
slow-steady-controlled dev masterplan. That in mind i guess they
are only decreasing their dev speed - so folks hands on 6 - PHP 6 :-)

> George

Best regards,
Marcus

Andi Gutmans

21 years ago

At 09:41 PM 8/9/2005 +0200, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:25:27 -0700
>andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans) wrote:
>
> > I think Unicode warrants a major version. I'd go with PHP 6 and
> > aim to release it before Perl 6 :)
> >  From judging by a Perl 6 talk we attended at OSCON, that might
> > actually be a realistic goal.
>
>No rush please... Better after and better than before and half
>backed :-D

Well I'd like Unicode support out there as quickly as possible. That should
be our main mission in my opinion (biggest bang for the buck). That said,
obviously it shouldn't go out before it's ready, and there's still a lot of
work and testing to be done...
But anyway, it's too early to discuss :)

Andi

Zeev Suraski

21 years ago

I agree, the Unicode-enabled version of PHP should definitely be 6.0.

Zeev

At 11:41 09/08/2005, Derick Rethans wrote: