Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66532
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com does not designate 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender)
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> <CAAyV7nFLoC2nL+Usocwm6f-bTPP24Q7OU6R1gd7pM8qSGLLVTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nFLoC2nL+Usocwm6f-bTPP24Q7OU6R1gd7pM8qSGLLVTg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJ3DSuB//AVAgGgZEkT5WvLzC9oRwILJHjTAh6IVksCNX/beQFFG8MiAtbChFYB2/TX5AJ4t6N5AapYFrwBw9xHyAGd9UCHAvo34cEB3U3fcgC509ASln0jKgA=
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:52:20 +0200
Message-ID: <7faa70ac4ef59d9f7748b17de1d6892d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, Laruence <laruence@php.net>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec55238c4bb3c7a04d7588726
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

--bcaec55238c4bb3c7a04d7588726
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Anthony,



As a rule of thumb, if the language syntax doesn=E2=80=99t change, it doesn=
=E2=80=99t need
a 2/3 vote.

How do I know?  I asked for this special majority in the first place.  It
was designed to protect the language from becoming the kitchen sink of
programming languages, not from making architectural progress.



If we need to amend the original voting RFC text so that it=E2=80=99s clear=
er =E2=80=93
let=E2=80=99s do that.  Right now it=E2=80=99s slightly ambiguous because i=
t mentions
=E2=80=98language syntax=E2=80=99 as an example, instead of outright saying=
 that it=E2=80=99s about
that, period.



Zeev



*From:* Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:44 PM
*To:* Rasmus Lerdorf
*Cc:* Pierre Joye; Nikita Popov; Zeev Suraski; Laruence; PHP Developers
Mailing List
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
distribution



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...

--bcaec55238c4bb3c7a04d7588726--