On 21 Jul 2014, at 14:47, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > Everything I know about the PHP community, combined with the amazing level > of interest that the recent PHPNG benchmarks garnered, tells me that it > wrong. > People would love to get it even if it was just the performance & memory > footprint gains alone. And we're not even talking about that - we'd still > have ample time to put in additional features into it.
Yes, “additional” features. Not big ones. That is my point of contention: if the only major engine-level thing we have time to add is phpng’s performance improvements, I’m not sure it’s worthy of being PHP NEXT. >>> This is the assumption we should take IMHO, and only branch 5.7 (and >>> more importantly, invest time in it) if it proves wrong. >> >> Branching 5.7 wouldn't be a big effort. Master is fairly stable, and if > some RFCs >> pass, we can merge them into 5.7. It also gives us a fallback. If PHP > NEXT >> doesn't happen next year (and I expect that it won't), we'll still have > 5.7. > > I can live with that, as long as we treat 5.7 as a secondary project where > we backport stuff rom master, and as long as it's clear to everyone that > it may be (or IMHO may very well be) throw-away code that we'll never > actually use. Personally I think it makes more sense to focus on getting > .NEXT out the door quickly so that we don't have to get into the headache > of working on two active trees, though. I'd like to see what others are > thinking… Well, I don’t think that, realistically, introducing PHP NEXT will immediately kill the 5.x line. We should have at least one more release after NEXT comes out. That release will probably be 5.7, and who knows, perhaps it might actually come out *after* NEXT. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
