On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Derick Rethans <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Heh. That happens already now too...
>
> Not really, except in extreme cases where one tries to block a thing
> using one way or another. However I do not think either we need 2/3 to
> change something in the Engine, core or extension but what is actually
> exposed to the users, which we have to maintain for BC reasons for
> years. On the other hand, internals are more flexible and can be
> changed without impacting existing applications.
>
>> So I'd rather be more descriptive.
>> The release process and voting RFCs are so incredible vague.
>
> The only vague part is about major releases (like 6) as it is merely
> impossible to define a time frame for them. Everything else is rather
> clear and has worked quite well for the numerous submitted RFCs.
>
> That being said, we can clarify the major release process and try to
> put some time frames in them. But I am not in favor of over formalized
> the other parts and try to keep relying on common senses, even if the
> latter has some hard time lately.
Ok to clarify it, sure.
I'm all +1 to branch 6 after 5.6 is released (say during 2014) , we
have some talented contributors, some ideas, some motivation feeling
and we are at PHP5 + 10 years.
I think we'll need at least 2 years developement, if not 3.
All this depends on what we want to do with PHP6, and this must be
community debatted, open.
I hope people will understand issues of PHP6, and won't start drama
again and again :-p
Julien