On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 14:00 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Johannes Schlüter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 13:41 +0100, Ulf Wendel wrote:
> >> Am 31.01.2014 13:36, schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
> >> > I think adding this patch to 5.x therefore would be quite some bending
> >> > of that rule and that combined with the fact that it is late makes me
> >> > believe that proposing this for 5.6 is illegal.
> >>
> >> Are you saying the RFC is 'illegal' ? If the subject proposed is not
> >> allowed, it would make litte sense collecting votes.
> >
> > I think the RM has to reject this from 5.6 independently from the voting
> > result as he is bound by the release process RFC.
>
> I think you should stop to try to block things using all possible tools :)
I'm just using your rules.
And well, I like the idea that this change gives us - long term - higher
quality code which is a good thing. But as this benefit is long time I
see little need to push it through. The more predictable yearly release
cycle gives us a way without taking too much risk.
> FYI: https://wiki.php.net/todo/php56
The fact that it is on a todo is nice. It still missed alpha1, either
the alpha would have had to be delayed or it has to wait for the next
version.
On the point whether this should be in 5.7 (if that exists) or 6
whatever I don't care too much. For 5.6 it is too late.
johannes