Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71879 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 20417 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2014 13:59:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 Jan 2014 13:59:17 -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] ([85.13.130.122:42029] helo=dd5506.kasserver.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7D/52-09212-43CABE25 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:59:17 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.37] (p5B3EA0BF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.62.160.191]) by dd5506.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7935731211DE for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:59:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52EBAC13.3050306@phpdoc.de> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:58:43 +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> <1391174874.2941.160.camel@guybrush> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 14:35, schrieb Pierre Joye: > First, there are many authors. Secondly this RFC follows every single > step of the RFC process and will do until the votes phase is over and > accept the results, no matter how they look. Let's not forget that the core argument is one about the RFC /matters/ judged in the context of an accepted release process with regards to: API/ABI changes in x.y+1 versions As I see it, the RFC /process/ itself has never been questioned. Ulf