Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72063
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402030947450.6067@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
References: <e0681b3331094323d383a048471790f8.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>
	<52EAF0A3.2000001@oracle.com>
	<1d5850561e0ef9e7739c7e7b7b0448d0.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>
	<52EC0B34.8080109@oracle.com>
	<d41c0659b516306ea4eb534723f3d771@mail.gmail.com>
	<1391279853.2941.307.camel@guybrush>
	<52ED6664.7080906@sugarcrm.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1402030947450.6067@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:53:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU61Rp6icVF80+cJxHetbQZ0i_UEFMuS-tOBLMv6RcAxPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>, 
	Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Christopher Jones <christopher.jones@oracle.com>, 
	Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string length
 and integer
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> Heh. That happens already now too...

Not really, except in extreme cases where one tries to block a thing
using one way or another. However I do not think either we need 2/3 to
change something in the Engine, core or extension but what is actually
exposed to the users, which we have to maintain for BC reasons for
years. On the other hand, internals are more flexible and can be
changed without impacting existing applications.

> So I'd rather be more descriptive.
> The release process and voting RFCs are so incredible vague.

The only vague part is about major releases (like 6) as it is merely
impossible to define a time frame for them. Everything else is rather
clear and has worked quite well for the numerous submitted RFCs.

That being said, we can clarify the major release process and try to
put some time frames in them. But I am not in favor of over formalized
the other parts and try to keep relying on common senses, even if the
latter has some hard time lately.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org