Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66546
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com does not designate 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
References: <435a322ccb14090d3bcf6bf8a110396d@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU56QE=uMFcE+xe2vSzwCH_9KGFs33bJCySWpsx6Ed7k3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABBJUpds9XnOZC9gfDs8OHmoe6hTQosqe8qzmTtTX4Xg-JsT+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <8944597477930141639@unknownmsgid> <5138CBBC.8030409@lerdorf.com> <slrnkjhvva.g88.dsp@experimentalworks.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <slrnkjhvva.g88.dsp@experimentalworks.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 23:51:23 +0200
Message-ID: <-2484139163858144303@unknownmsgid>
To: David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

On 7 =D7=91=D7=9E=D7=A8=D7=A5 2013, at 23:00, David Soria Parra <dsp@php.ne=
t> wrote:

> On 2013-03-07, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2013 09:01 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>>> So my proposal is to slow down for a minute and not call this RFC
>>> accepted or not until we can come to some consensus as to if it
>>> classifies as a language change or not... Better to clarify for the
>>> health of the project than to plow through and risk causing further
>>> strife...
>>
>> And how do you propose we do that? Vote on it? Will that vote need 2/3
>> as well? I think most of us accepted that language-level changes meant
>> syntax changes. Things that add new features to the language itself.
>
> I think the only thing requiring a 2/3 vote would be the decision on
> wheather to enable it by default or not. As long as it's in ext/
> and not enabled a 50% should be sufficient.

Not that I worry, but how do we reach that conclusion?
Rasmus had a good point.  We didn't even vote about interned strings
(and that's a good thing), and I'm doubtful that if we did find it
necessary to vote for it, we'd find that more than 51% is needed.  How
is enabling O+ different?  Or do we need a vote, and even a 2/3 vote,
for every significant perf improvement?

Again, I don't really worry - given that 94% of voters voted in favor
of embracing O+ (and honestly I'd love to get wider user feedback from
5.5 evaluators before we take this call) - but I'm worried that 2/3
voting requirement will become arbitrary, and not what it was designed
to serve - a way from protecting the language from a flood of
irreversible changes.

Zeev