Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:103920
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOwTYAsePeRLZZVK=QKftoOtug2_F=5bsti56z2mJfBXP0u4rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM6PR02MB5594D2DE0A166B13024E44B9AC910@DM6PR02MB5594.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAOwTYAtr=eoRxAR4yOT_a-zuw_m9_wvNU-01eX3AyyQd5Rgw2w@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR02MB5594464D33F2A0A02D747D6BAC910@DM6PR02MB5594.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR02MB5594464D33F2A0A02D747D6BAC910@DM6PR02MB5594.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:27:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOwTYAvnRaszSVi9Ua0AGdnMP5YCRjV7UGAnyk9DJ+qfXLG26Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d5a5f30580c1d487"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Abolish Narrow Margins
From: krakjoe@gmail.com (Joe Watkins)

--000000000000d5a5f30580c1d487
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Afternoon Zeev,

I'm going to use unambiguous and direct language to make sure my intentions
and concerns are communicated clearly, you can either receive this as a
personal attack, or as a contributor being direct, I would prefer the
latter.

Let us be clear about the things you are doing:

You pushed FFI into php-src on a simple majority, it had one user, was
incomplete (with leaks), and had zero justification for being included in
php-src - it didn't require any internal API's and can function just fine
as a PECL extension, still you pushed through with the RFC and it was
accepted on a simple majority.

You are now trying to push JIT into php-src on the same slim, clearly
unacceptable majority, and even if you change the majority requirements,
what's worse is you want to include it in a minor version. Once again, this
is an incomplete feature, failing to support the architectures we support
and declaring them unimportant. You are pushing PHP towards a future where
there is effectively a single contributor, possibly two, able to make
changes to Zend+Opcache; You are changing core parts of PHP too fast and
making other contributors, including the maintainers of external tooling
which the ecosystem requires to function, uncomfortable.

I really don't think you have bad intentions, but think our processes are
allowing us to make questionable decisions for the whole project, and this
I intend to resolve, regardless of your next actions, before any more
questionable decisions can be taken.

Cheers
Joe






On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 14:38, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
>
>
> First, you have to wait an absolute minimum of one week, and arguably two
> weeks, from the point in time you say you intend to move ahead with the R=
FC
> for a vote.  That=E2=80=99s per the ratified Voting RFC, this really isn=
=E2=80=99t up for
> the individual RFC author to decide.  It=E2=80=99s clear that an author c=
an=E2=80=99t wake
> up a year after a certain discussion and move directly to a vote, even in
> the poorly written Voting RFC that=E2=80=99s currently in effect.  Given =
the far
> reaching implications of this particular RFC, it=E2=80=99s pretty clear t=
hat this
> shouldn=E2=80=99t be one of the short, 1-week ones, but I guess this is o=
pen for
> interpretation (yet another illness of the current Voting RFC that must b=
e
> resolved).
>
>
>
> Re: JIT - I don=E2=80=99t think we should halt the discussion on the RFC,=
 but I do
> think it should require a 2/3 majority =E2=80=93 IFF we define the voting=
 rights
> and other topics.  In other words =E2=80=93 we can start discussing the m=
erits and
> downsides of the RFC =E2=80=93 but should probably wait with the vote its=
elf until
> that=E2=80=99s cleared.
>
>
>
> For the record, I resent the language you used and the mal-intentions you
> attribute to me here.  I=E2=80=99ll leave it at that.
>
>
>
> Zeev
>
>
>
> *From:* Joe Watkins <krakjoe@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:26 PM
> *To:* Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
> *Cc:* internals@lists.php.net
> *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Abolish Narrow Margins
>
>
>
> Afternoon Zeev,
>
>
>
> I imagine you will not like what I have to say either: In light of the
> recent actions you have taken and are taking to push incomplete software
> into php-src on narrow margins, prematurely, it makes perfect sense to
> discuss margins independently, and I intend to do so. Your opinion will b=
e
> taken into consideration when you cast your vote.
>
>
>
> I do insist, and will not be waiting two weeks, unless you agree to delay
> the JIT RFC until this issue is resolved.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 14:07, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Joe Watkins <krakjoe@gmail.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:59 PM
> >To: internals@lists.php.net
> >Subject: [PHP-DEV] RFC Abolish Narrow Margins
> >
> >Afternoon internals,
> >
> >Some time ago I brought up for discussion:
> >https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins
> >
> >I intend to bring this up for vote in the next few days.
>
> Joe,
>
> Given that time that passed since I brought up my wider-scoped RFC, and
> yet haven't pushed it through (some major things were happening on my end=
,
> as you may have heard...) - I can imagine you're not going to like what I=
'm
> going to say, but fundamentally - nothing changed.  It still doesn't make
> sense, IMHO, to discuss the margin independently of other questions - eve=
n
> if you explicitly mention them as being outside of the scope of the RFC.
>
> Also, given the time that passed and the importance of this, it should
> require a brand new mandatory 2-week discussion period before we go for a
> vote - even if you insist on moving forward with this narrow-scoped RFC.
>
> At the same time, I'd like to finally solicit feedback explicitly on my
> wider-scoped RFC, as I guess we can't wait any longer.  I'll send a
> separate email about that.
>
> Zeev
>
>

--000000000000d5a5f30580c1d487--