Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66529
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5138C0FD.1010208@lerdorf.com>
References: <435a322ccb14090d3bcf6bf8a110396d@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU56QE=uMFcE+xe2vSzwCH_9KGFs33bJCySWpsx6Ed7k3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpds9XnOZC9gfDs8OHmoe6hTQosqe8qzmTtTX4Xg-JsT+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<8944597477930141639@unknownmsgid>
	<CAEZPtU75+HZMcP+HUAEFGQ3R99g5_PsWJMd4OUkq+__s2CVc9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a0793107537dceb9cc67c616294ce76@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU73==PG7QXT61LRZ0TNFUmtN1B5kBpXP1Cjvg2sZighGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5132FE98.5050201@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU668P3YTn9g8CZbavb0nz-ui6NDKP0pCEb-7zZE+Q8-VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<513316A1.1050109@lerdorf.com>
	<CAF+90c8G-dQHVgwbKL16kJmHjbJLMXai6bNS7TZjXT1OT+QBAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5WPhWh_yhcnFvTFdgPKsSez2DikEqrC2qthwHGUUbhzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5138C0FD.1010208@lerdorf.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:44:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nFLoC2nL+Usocwm6f-bTPP24Q7OU6R1gd7pM8qSGLLVTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Laruence <laruence@php.net>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0434bf0c4b558f04d7586bf2
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

--f46d0434bf0c4b558f04d7586bf2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Rasmus,

We already covered that. An opcode cache doesn't affect the language
> itself. There is no new syntax and no BC issues. Much like a performance
> improvement patch that has no effect on the language syntax doesn't need
> 2/3. Whether it is "major" or not, doesn't matter per the established
> voting process. You can't both be a stickler for the details of this
> process and then ignore them when they become inconvenient for you.
>

To be fair, we did cover it, and we didn't come to a consensus. There were
a few people like yourself who believe it's not a language change and hence
requires 2/3... But there are a lot of other people (many who are raising
their hands now) who do believe it's a language level change and hence
requires 2/3. Sure, it doesn't effect syntax. But it can be considered a BC
change, as the internal zend API changes (not in terms of signatures, but
behaviors).

All I'm saying here is that while we did discuss it, no consensus was
achieved. So I don't think it's fair to say "we already covered that".

Anthony

PS: How would we resolve something like this? Would it require a 2/3
meta-vote to determine if something needs a 2/3 vote? Seems like we're
hitting a limit of the RFC here that perhaps should be refactored...
Perhaps make everything require a 2/3 vote, and not have a distinction...

--f46d0434bf0c4b558f04d7586bf2--