Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71872 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 9412 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2014 13:09:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 Jan 2014 13:09:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ulf.wendel@phpdoc.de; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ulf.wendel@phpdoc.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain phpdoc.de from 85.13.130.122 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ulf.wendel@phpdoc.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.13.130.122 dd5506.kasserver.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [85.13.130.122] ([85.13.130.122:40401] helo=dd5506.kasserver.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 91/00-09212-B80ABE25 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:09:32 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.37] (p5B3EA0BF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.62.160.191]) by dd5506.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EB68C31211DE for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:09:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52EBA069.10608@phpdoc.de> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:08:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <1391171792.2941.130.camel@guybrush> <52EB9A16.5060605@phpdoc.de> <1391172906.2941.140.camel@guybrush> In-Reply-To: <1391172906.2941.140.camel@guybrush> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string length and integer From: ulf.wendel@phpdoc.de (Ulf Wendel) Am 31.01.2014 13:55, schrieb Johannes Schlüter: > 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. Thanks for explaining. The three takeaway point for me are: - you are serious about following the rules - a radical minded person may refuse to vote in the first place Ulf