FAQ
hi,

A page has been created today to document the migration to phpng (for
those willing to do it before the rfc got accepted :):

https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading

It would be nice to keep adding things not listed there as we found
them. That will be amazingly helpful to port existing codes and write
the final migration guide.

Cheers,
--
Pierre

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

Search Discussions

  • Andrea Faulds at May 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    On 12 May 2014, at 18:35, Pierre Joye wrote:

    A page has been created today to document the migration to phpng (for
    those willing to do it before the rfc got accepted :):

    https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading

    It would be nice to keep adding things not listed there as we found
    them. That will be amazingly helpful to port existing codes and write
    the final migration guide.

    With all these phpng- pages, maybe there should be a /phpng/ namespace? ;)

    --
    Andrea Faulds
    http://ajf.me/
  • Pierre Joye at May 12, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
    On 12 May 2014, at 18:35, Pierre Joye wrote:

    A page has been created today to document the migration to phpng (for
    those willing to do it before the rfc got accepted :):

    https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading

    It would be nice to keep adding things not listed there as we found
    them. That will be amazingly helpful to port existing codes and write
    the final migration guide.


    With all these phpng- pages, maybe there should be a /phpng/ namespace? ;)
    yes, or actually a /rfc/phpng*


    --
    Pierre

    @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
  • Stas Malyshev at May 12, 2014 at 8:26 pm
    Hi!
    yes, or actually a /rfc/phpng*
    phpng is not an RFC though. Decision about merging phpng and naming it
    PHP6 or whatever may be an RFC, but technical details about it are just
    docs.


    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Pierre Joye at May 12, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    On May 12, 2014 10:26 PM, "Stas Malyshev" wrote:
    Hi!
    yes, or actually a /rfc/phpng*
    phpng is not an RFC though. Decision about merging phpng and naming it
    PHP6 or whatever may be an RFC, but technical details about it are just
    docs.
    I disagree. These changes are perfectly valid as rfc and should be proposed
    as any other changes.

    It can be one of the new things for 6, maybe the 1st one to begin with.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Stas Malyshev at May 12, 2014 at 9:33 pm
    Hi!
    I disagree. These changes are perfectly valid as rfc and should be
    proposed as any other changes.
    By this principle, everything in PHP introduced since we have the wiki
    should live under rfc namespace, since it was a change which has to be
    proposed as an RFC. I think such usage of rfc namespace makes it useless
    as it would mix pages pertaining to the rfc process as such (proposing
    the change, discussing it, etc.) with pages used to document various things.
    It can be one of the new things for 6, maybe the 1st one to begin with.
    That's why we need a namespace for new things for 6. And phpng is as
    good name as any :)
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Johannes Schlüter at May 12, 2014 at 11:56 pm

    On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 14:33 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
    Hi!
    I disagree. These changes are perfectly valid as rfc and should be
    proposed as any other changes.
    By this principle, everything in PHP introduced since we have the wiki
    should live under rfc namespace, since it was a change which has to be
    proposed as an RFC. I think such usage of rfc namespace makes it useless
    as it would mix pages pertaining to the rfc process as such (proposing
    the change, discussing it, etc.) with pages used to document various things.
    Just to rephrase in a way we all understand and agree (hopefully):

           * If this change is added it requires an RFC, under rfc/
           * Now is too early for an RFC on such a complex topic
           * The whole set of documentation is too much for an RFC
           * This basic documentation should be in a namespace (phpng/ or
             maybe internals/phpng/)
           * The RFC can quote and link that documentation once it is being
             proposed
           * Lateron this should end up in the PHP docs

    johannes

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupphp-internals @
categoriesphp
postedMay 12, '14 at 5:35p
activeMay 12, '14 at 11:56p
posts7
users4
websitephp.net

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase