Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65271 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45849 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 17:07:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 17:07:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com does not designate 209.85.219.41 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.219.41 mail-oa0-f41.google.com Received: from [209.85.219.41] ([209.85.219.41:40029] helo=mail-oa0-f41.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 74/03-28517-F50B6015 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:07:44 -0500 Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id i10so733227oag.28 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:07:41 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:x-mailer :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=dJxXujI/jjuQJT55ooME1gt/wa51zlicjcrTbDCPDY4=; b=Htn1wzgNCgp6fGuOCX59rkE6FEGbF83hBViSr3cCsL4ewR58yYVAt5SN7OFzUdCmke xOF8eTKozDoi678mxKlO1Dbxy0Xyzekot5sfAeGYkK4akTt+zcHSVPh0PNM96V1vk1il sQFyFeecnajWUKZCBj2ffJgnIL45skmxO64mBV3xEAh6W0vRLzb4LePmpOw9mks7LUQs kJMQV5DE9wouHootGQUXwb9ceXf9J+BWwwVOGi7VKHBosbw956inKAbWj3BcV3/jhcK8 CSYGrp+6LfL3Ks1g6QrlkjH0zimIbdLNimxcMELF14+UzZ2Ovdpg8SqMKFzuvoRJGskZ ZUbA== X-Received: by 10.182.72.69 with SMTP id b5mr11905010obv.4.1359392861057; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:07:41 -0800 (PST) References: <76a9565b2a095a72063a68f106a6b457@mail.gmail.com> <5ed6711b24349c82b7c17dd450ff7c80@mail.gmail.com> <7165e8331e1070234771f7ae9573cdf8@mail.gmail.com> <5106690E.6040908@zerocue.com> <510679E0.1050603@zerocue.com> In-Reply-To: <510679E0.1050603@zerocue.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQItj407fvbyyHusXdfq7WqB3TBWzwH/50DcAYH7XhQC750pEQD+3ruMAeryfbICLrX/awIfS0cRlzKGNjA= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:07:40 +0200 Message-ID: To: Clint Priest , Peter Cowburn Cc: Pierre Joye , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYDd6qRQUgnJoCe5mmjZRhwz2303solNCPaLH304I0PAFBKSAjNWT81jYEbWn4TPYugYsUAmJxioc1snfaslcSASmNmqorMqO/URxYBLOv951YIpclCNnO9paaJixSZ3wTjdKW Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) > -----Original Message----- > From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpriest@zerocue.com] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:15 PM > To: Peter Cowburn > Cc: Zeev Suraski; Pierre Joye; PHP internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods > > > On 1/28/2013 6:12 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote: > > On 28 January 2013 12:03, Clint Priest wrote: > >> If you're still worried about this making it in, don't worry. Nikita > >> and I have given up, to the determinant of the community. > >> > > Then please close the voting. > Since there is no "maximum voting period" and 5.5 is not in a feature freeze yet, > I left the voting open, in case some people decided to read the patch and change > their minds. I see no reason to close the vote unless I'm required to do so or the > game is up. I think there's an almost-consensus that voting periods need to be well defined. Two reasons: 1. If you care enough about it you should be able to vote about it within one or two weeks. 2. Leaving it open ended gives the RFC proposer too much power. He could simply end the vote once it happens to reach the necessary majority. So I'd say yes, you're required to end it, either immediately or at most at the end of the two week boundary. > asking for this feature (present in every other modern > language) for 5+ years. I spent two years going through the *tedious* RFC > discussion process, wrote the software, Nikita made it even better to have it > shot down without even reasonable explanations as to why "from most people." There are two very reasonable explanations, and it's fine you may disagree with them: 1. It makes the language more complex. 2. It makes the language more difficult to maintain. In both cases, the people who opposed it thought that the gain from adding it doesn't outweigh these loss in complexity and maintenance overhead. > Some are resting on the idea that the ROI isn't there just aren't listening to the > community. The vast majority of the PHP community is a silent one; These people don't participate here on internals; They don't attend conferences; They use it - the vast majority of them in a professional manner - and they picked it because they like it the way it is, not because of what it needs to become. For every person that subscribes to internals, there's a thousand (yes, a THOUSAND) people who don't (it's several thousands vs.~5 million). In fact, they're not completely silent. They speak in volumes - PHP 5.4 is used in less than 1% of the sites using PHP today, and even the relatively revolutionary 5.3 is still a lot less popular than 5.2. The new shiny features are not all that interesting for most people. The community that participates in internals isn't necessarily representative of the community at large. Zeev