FAQ

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:

It's absolutely fine to have separate discussions on cleaning APIs, new
features and any other changes people think we should do, but it absolutely
has nothing to do with phpng moving into master. We can take the
opportunity of a major version to do some cleanups, BUT:
It is obviously not only absolutely fine, it is a requirement. It
should have done before anything else, for obvious reasons.

1. It's independent from the phpng effort and RFC. We should vote on it as
soon as possible to remove any doubts that do linger in people's minds
regarding whether at all we're going to use it.
If it is independent from phpng then phpng is nothing more than a (set
of) patches that should be proposed independently and not as a
replacement for master or as base for php-next.
2. We should set a due date for this version, so that we don't wait
indefinitely for things to happen. We don't have the luxury of 'sitting' on
phpng for years, IMHO. This too is an independent question from this RFC.
I wonder when you have been while we were talking about what we
actually like to do and have in php-next. Maybe it was a better
strategic choice to participate in the various efforts to get a clear,
well discussed and designed roadmap rather than doing this massive set
of patches in your corner. And yes, I already said that many times.
I just cant believe we won't rework our API , fully and deeply, for
PHP-Next.
You're more than welcome to make such proposals and either write patches or
rally others to write them. This RFC doesn't preclude any other changes
happening in PHP.NEXT, it just removes the doubts about this being the basis
for the next version of PHP.
As a matter of facts, and despite your (team) numerous posts saying
that you had no plan to do what you are proposing here, the efforts
for php-next has simply being stopped to avoid the pain that was the
64bit RFC because of phpng. A RFC that you totally agreed to have in
next as it was earlier this year after having rejecting it for 5.x.
Regarding Dmitry saying that phpng is an experimental branch - that was a
couple of months ago.
That was last week or at the end of the previous week. Amazingly
enough, at the same time you were saying that phpng was pretty stable
and no more huge changes will happen, many huge changes reached this
branch, and these changes were not bugs fixes. It tells me a lot about
the visibility you have on phpng. I do not mean to offend anyone here
but for what I see here is what we had with opcache, power 20. I do
not want to see that for php-next, or we can just begin to vote for
what will be the next major version once we borked 6 and 7.
It evolved, it runs apps in parity with 5.6, and it's
fine to move it to master right now. The alternative - developing 5.7 on
master and creating a synchronization hell - sounds like a horrible course
of action.
Welcome to the world you created for us since you rejected a 200%
stable branch and then killing it by introducing an experimental one,
with a clear goal, from the very beginning, to replace master for the
next major version. This world is not the one I want or wish for the
PHP core.

Now, enough bashing.

What I wish to even consider reviewing or discussing phpng any further:

- clear documentation of the changes and migration plans
- clear roadmap of upcoming changes, even work in progress
- how open you are to changes (cleanup, APIs consistency
"improvements",etc.) in phpng before it is merged, no matter how
- integration of existing patches, blocked now since months by phpng,
and how you plan to support us to merge them in phpng, if it ever
happens.
- actual discussions about what we want for php-next, as performance
is only very tiny part of the work for php-next


Cheers,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2018 Grokbase