Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52944
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=Td6yAVZT/xMA9ji4Ln14LSYB2tPvvIqWEg0y8w864xo/Agk6Fq50H29yjr0KF3FyAr
         0pK4jMI9O53kSlvx0MPk3MeNXsVXfNRj+pQNvYZQ3TASOYkPQNCmGCUTStTle4drg+tU
         msTOEGxYUn4TTbkx55Aqb+pxaLLeCNLkSc3mo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C71F1C3D-BB22-4BD2-81FE-C5126CD3D65D@roshambo.org>
References: <4DE7F179.5010402@sugarcrm.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1106030843370.9040@whisky>
	<4DE89534.5070206@sugarcrm.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1106030920570.9040@whisky>
	<4DE89CD2.4040302@sugarcrm.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1106030937571.9040@whisky>
	<4DE9AA9B.3000108@sugarcrm.com>
	<BANLkTikBScqQM9gxo2a8Bgxn4aHavQcRMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5D5F48EF-F7CD-424B-B3C6-6FA1E1412FA0@roshambo.org>
	<887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A493052EF@il-ex2.zend.net>
	<BANLkTi=sMONzJTFkezeY_2jEcEjYQbFK1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<C71F1C3D-BB22-4BD2-81FE-C5126CD3D65D@roshambo.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 18:30:11 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinxwduQXxBoLZuFzT_Wyfy-LGC6ZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV]
 5.4 moving forward)
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org> wrote:

>> I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions
>> happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about
>> release process, let adopt it already!) and move on with 5.4.
>
>
> This is a prime example of what we're talking about. Several have expressed a desire to follow an Ubuntu style of branching instead of the style proposed in said RFC. This is a core issue, so the RFC is certainly not ready to adopt.
>
> So does this require a new RFC, or do the RFC proposers feel this is a key concept?

As I stated before, there is a RFC with a fair amount of developers
involved. Some of the supporters of the Ubuntu TLS model already
changed their mind (as it clearly does not work for php, random
features being TLS just because of the timing makes no sense). If you
think a RFC is not ready, not desired, not good enough or whatever
other reason motivates you, vote against and propose something else.
But you can even say no and propose nothing afterwards.

As of this specific RFC, it is actually a very good one, it is not
perfect and will need adjustement in the coming years, that's a damned
sure thing. But we can not argue forever only because a minority
thinks we should argue endlessly or change nothing.


Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org