Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70006
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
To: internals@lists.php.net,Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5277861A.5020202@php.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:33:46 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <65.90.33939.943A3725@pb1.pair.com> <CAH-PCH7=Vcyx4+yMrdwjebtG1_x13AcW8g4FMx=tOS9yTQ+tYA@mail.gmail.com> <527766D5.8090407@rotorised.com> <CAEZPtU7rxXyNpfuq0TuC7p4WCJ=YmLmGruRmd38yOqLWr5s55w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7rxXyNpfuq0TuC7p4WCJ=YmLmGruRmd38yOqLWr5s55w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Vote: Expectations
From: krakjoe@php.net (Joe Watkins)

On 11/04/2013 09:39 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Ryan McCue <lists@rotorised.com> wrote:
>> Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>>> uhm, did you just delete this rfc?
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/expectations?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1383415199&rev2%5B1%5D=&difftype=sidebyside
>>> I've behind a bit on the recent discussions, so maybe I've just missed some
>>> mail where this was mentioned.
>>>
>>
>> I suspect it's related to this:
>> https://twitter.com/krakjoe/status/396701273677762561
>
> Sad.
>
> I have hard time to understand what happened here. I just came back
> from a very busy time&weekend, was about to vote (positively) on this
> feature and noticed the RFC was withdrawn and his author left php.net.
>
> As I can understand the frustration of having to discuss something
> with people not agreeing with you, I do not understand, and will
> barely ever do, the "accept or I leave" way of doing things. There
> were good discussions for this proposal and other, but if we can't
> discuss things anymore without fearing to loose a contributor, then I
> do not see any kind of solutions to get out of this. But I will let
> Joe explains his reasoning here, if he wishes to.
>

Morning Pierre,

	I spent a considerable amount of time working on documentation, closing 
bugs, responding to feature requests, and generally trying to be useful 
in any area where I could be useful, I done this for more than a year.

	Note that of the 8 pull requests I closed the other day, only one of 
them was for an RFC.

	I have no such attitude, at all, I think you know that, and suspect you 
used this to draw me into a conversation I had said I had left.

	It is likely that it is good for PHP that someone cannot come along and 
make radical changes, introduce new ideas; it destabilizes PHP, fair 
enough. I gladly withdrew the nested classes RFC after anons failed, I 
listened, responded appropriately. I got on with other things ... it 
just so happened that in the conversation following anons failing, 
somebody on twitter mentioned it would be nice to have an assertion API, 
so I looked, we have an assertion API.

	PHP should have an assertion API close to Java, not C, that's obvious. 
What may not be obvious is that in a high level language assert is not 
used in the same ways as in C, I used the Java documentation of the same 
feature to drive this point home, it could not have been explained 
better, if you were actually listening.

	The current assertion API by anyone's standards is piss poor. You 
cannot deploy it if you are sane, I don't much care what people think 
about that, or if they are deploying it now and don't see a problem. The 
assertion that it is piss poor is based on reading the code, on an 
understanding of how that code works, on many years of experience 
pushing PHP to it's absolute limits, both on the bench and at work. I 
absolutely know for sure that what it is doing it not optimial, or even 
acceptable as an implementation of assert that is intended to be used. 
In my mind there is no question, it needs to be replaced. Obviously, I 
done it, I discussed it with many people, spoke to one of the teams 
developing unit testing software about names and patterns, made changes 
for them, I done everything properly.

	To be truthful I was out of energy before this RFC went ahead, but I 
thought I'd give it one last bash, you'd have to be properly insane to 
say no, lets keep the old implementation ... but guess what, I got an 
insane reaction ...

	I don't like to argue with people, it is as simple as that. I have no 
time for, and no interest in, fortnight long debates about the obvious. 
I have all the time in the world for writing code, for solving problems, 
but absolutely none for arguing, for pointing out the obvious to those 
who should be qualified enough to observe it for themselves, for 
bickering about things that just simply, don't matter. This is not 
activity I would have engaged in, ever. I see no reason to continue 
making an exception: Pushing an elephant up a staircase is draining, I'm 
out of energy ...

Cheers
Joe