Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66552
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com does not designate 209.85.215.45 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>	<EC222032-F472-40B4-83F9-6BC34440204E@roshambo.org>
 <CAAyV7nHy3z--mXX0C-c3TWMP9__j27viwb=68jr5CkgXfZg4yA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nHy3z--mXX0C-c3TWMP9__j27viwb=68jr5CkgXfZg4yA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJ3DSuB//AVAgGgZEkT5WvLzC9oRwILJHjTAh6IVksCNX/beQJaoERJAgAkWjoCr3nTmwH+w2ctls4jn3A=
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:55:26 -0800
Message-ID: <2bb1c8ba9522986b8c6d71ac8e5af0dc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org>
Cc: David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:58 PM
>To: Philip Olson
>Cc: David Soria Parra; internals@lists.php.net
>Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
>distribution
>
>Philip,
>
>Shouldn't we be focusing on how this makes PHP better? And not nitpick
>> about a percentage point or two?
>>
>
>Well, this passed with 62.8%. Property accessors failed with 60.7%. The
target
>for acceptance is 66.6%. So 3.8% is enough to throw away, but 5.9% isn't?
>
>I think the point of this discussion is that rules are rules for a
reason.
>You can't be high and holy and deny one RFC judiciously, and then hand-
>wave and say the next RFC doesn't matter because the intention is there
(or
>whatever rationale is).

I have to say I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry at some of the
ludicrous statements that have been made here.

The 2/3 vote rule was meant to protect the language from not becoming
bloated, i.e. language syntax feature creep. This has been a serious
concern for many of us over the past years with just an ever increasing
flood of new language syntax suggestions coming in. I think very few of us
looked at that as a catch-all for any infrastructure change in PHP incl.
evolving PHP extensions, core runtime changes, etc..

The 62.8% comparison to 60.7% is the most out of touch thing I've read on
this mailing list in a long time. If you're talking about pure feature
yay/nay then 94% have given a yay to this "feature". The split is the
timing.

And as far as timing is concerned I do not see how this whole thing falls
into the 2/3 vote for "new language syntax/prevent feature creep rule".
Many times in the past have we aligned new PHP versions with runtime
improvements esp. as they are often exciting and beneficial to most of our
audience. I don't see why we wouldn't do that given that the cost is
pretty minimal and the benefit to our audience is high.
       	
Andi