Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71876 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 15618 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2014 13:35:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 Jan 2014 13:35:22 -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] ([217.114.215.10:53914] helo=mail.experimentalworks.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D9/51-09212-796ABE25 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:35:20 -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 C5C603FEE8; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:35:52 +0100 (CET) To: Pierre Joye Cc: Ulf Wendel , PHP internals In-Reply-To: References: <1391171792.2941.130.camel@guybrush> <52EB9A16.5060605@phpdoc.de> <1391172906.2941.140.camel@guybrush> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:35:14 +0100 Message-ID: <1391175315.2941.168.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 14:00 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Johannes Schlüter > wrote: > > 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. > > I think you should stop to try to block things using all possible tools :) I'm just using your rules. And well, I like the idea that this change gives us - long term - higher quality code which is a good thing. But as this benefit is long time I see little need to push it through. The more predictable yearly release cycle gives us a way without taking too much risk. > FYI: https://wiki.php.net/todo/php56 The fact that it is on a todo is nice. It still missed alpha1, either the alpha would have had to be delayed or it has to wait for the next version. On the point whether this should be in 5.7 (if that exists) or 6 whatever I don't care too much. For 5.6 it is too late. johannes