Re: [VOTE] [RFC] PHP 7.0 timeline

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: > >> On 21 בנוב׳ 2014, at 13:06, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: >>> After some Twitter hints that I should get my act together and finally move >>> this to a vote, it’s finally happening: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline#vote >>> >>> >>> >>> Cast your vote! >>> >>> >>> >>> Zeev >> >> Hi, >> >> could you update the timeline to mention when do you want to start the alpha and beta >> cycle? > >> for 5.6 the start of the alpha cycle indicated that we don't accept new proposals, and >> the start of the beta cycle indicated that we won't accept new features even if the RFC was >> already proposed or even accepted (but the patch wasn't finished or merged in time). >> you do mention the RC cycle as point 3, and my guess is that point 2, could be the beta >> cycle because your definition ("Finalize implementation & testing of new features") >> matches what we do with betas, but if that assumption is correct, then your RFC is missing a target >> date for the start of the alpha cycle, and that is important to know if we want to keep the rule >> that there could be no new RFCs targetting PHP7 after that date. > > I think the "finalize implementation" stage corresponds to our alpha stage, as > we're not feature complete. > > The proposal does suggest to go directly to an RC cycle afterwards, but it could read beta / RC > too. The difference between betas and RCs is typically very small, they're both feature > complete and only imply different levels of quality. Personally I don't think we need both. This is not the case. Beta means beta status but may be not features complete (as patch may have not made it yet). RCs on the other hand are. RC means no more addition and focus only on fixing things. This RFC is incomplete and unrealistic, besides not taking into account other opinions. It should go back to discussions and solve the obvious issues before even thinking about voting on it. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org