Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71894
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.212.41 cause and error)
References: <e0681b3331094323d383a048471790f8.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>
	 <1391171792.2941.130.camel@guybrush>  <52EB9A16.5060605@phpdoc.de> <1391172906.2941.140.camel@guybrush>
In-Reply-To: <1391172906.2941.140.camel@guybrush>
MIME-Version: 1.0
thread-index: AQKXG/MFvR0atL/ck2TgW5/Clbz6gwIG1ZhUAfRCZyUCOGo/GJjdvbxw
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:21:36 +0200
Message-ID: <9810c708a9fcc543a263365b5d7c2a63@mail.gmail.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string length
 and integer
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johannes Schl=C3=BCter [mailto:johannes@schlueters.de]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 2:55 PM
> To: Ulf Wendel
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string
> length and integer
>
> On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 13:41 +0100, Ulf Wendel wrote:
> > Am 31.01.2014 13:36, schrieb Johannes Schl=C3=BCter:
> > > 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.


All,

I have to add something here.

Many of the people voting on that RFC have never ever contributed as much a=
s
a single line of code into the PHP source tree, and a couple have literally
contributed low-single-digit patches.
Incidentally, as far as I could tell, all of them[*] voted in favor of the
proposed changes (i.e. source compatibility breakage).

Even though having non-code-contributors makes a lot of sense for decisions
regarding the language's features and we built in support for it in the
voting RFC, in my opinion, it makes no sense at all for people who have no
stake at the development of the language's source code to weigh in on how
that code is written.  Personally I didn't expect we'd be voting on things
like that (implementation style) back when I was involved in the voting RFC=
,
but perhaps it's time to amend it a bit.

If you fall in that category, please do the right thing and delete your
vote.

Zeev