Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71870 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5991 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2014 12:55:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 Jan 2014 12:55:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.215.10 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.215.10 mail.experimentalworks.net Received: from [217.114.215.10] ([217.114.215.10:53867] helo=mail.experimentalworks.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 34/DD-39593-E2D9BE25 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:55:11 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.31] (ppp-88-217-64-231.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.64.231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: johannes@schlueters.de) by mail.experimentalworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB97D3FEE8; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:55:43 +0100 (CET) To: Ulf Wendel Cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <52EB9A16.5060605@phpdoc.de> References: <1391171792.2941.130.camel@guybrush> <52EB9A16.5060605@phpdoc.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:55:05 +0100 Message-ID: <1391172906.2941.140.camel@guybrush> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string length and integer From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 13:41 +0100, Ulf Wendel wrote: > Am 31.01.2014 13:36, schrieb Johannes Schlüter: > > I think adding this patch to 5.x therefore would be quite some bending > > of that rule and that combined with the fact that it is late makes me > > believe that proposing this for 5.6 is illegal. > > Are you saying the RFC is 'illegal' ? If the subject proposed is not > allowed, it would make litte sense collecting votes. I think the RM has to reject this from 5.6 independently from the voting result as he is bound by the release process RFC. johannes