Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121294
Message-ID: <94635758-0be7-8fab-e43a-6f6b929af1e7@online-presence.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 20:25:56 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <0b72d5e0-94dc-8837-bfd4-d2e24ab9db05@online-presence.ca>
 <CAMrTa2Hfpm1y0XNApm1zP3oGHmQQS6JRBB5ZiOf8w93GpC-R3A@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Online Presence
In-Reply-To: <CAMrTa2Hfpm1y0XNApm1zP3oGHmQQS6JRBB5ZiOf8w93GpC-R3A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why did fibers get added to php core over something
 more fleshed out like swoole?
From: lanre@online-presence.ca (Lanre Waju)

Can you provide insights into the "significant number of people" who 
support the current system without concerns? It appears that you might 
be representing a substantial portion of such individuals. I did attempt 
to explore the mailing list discussions, but they did not yield 
conclusive answers, which is why I felt it was necessary to inquire 
directly. I hold no preconceived biases on this matter; I'm seeking a 
better understanding of the issue and the perspectives surrounding it.

Lanre

On 2023-10-12 7:30 p.m., Jordan LeDoux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:00 PM Lanre Waju <lanre@online-presence.ca> wrote:
>
>> It sometimes seems as though certain choices may not align with the best
>> interests of the PHP community. I would appreciate it if you could
>> provide insights into why this might not be the case.
>>
>>
> To find out why Fibers was done instead of something like Swoole, I'd
> suggest reading the mailing list discussions on those. That was a
> discussion that DID happen on list, and you can read about it there without
> us rehashing it for no particular reason.
>
> The way you ended this email though is very "guilty until proven innocent",
> and I think it's unlikely you're going to get many responses based on the
> way you phrased this and the implied accusation it entails.
>
> This is coming from someone who has their own reservations about how PHP
> voting is conducted. It's a discussion that very few people want to have
> because of how drawn out and heated it is likely to be, and the fact that a
> significant number of people don't see any problem with the current system.
> Trying to start that conversation with "it seems obviously broken, prove me
> wrong" sounds like just about the worst framing that discussion could have
> if you want it to be productive.
>
> Jordan
>