Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74139 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 84563 invoked from network); 12 May 2014 21:33:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 May 2014 21:33:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.99 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.99 smtp99.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.99] ([108.166.43.99:51526] helo=smtp99.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8A/10-17377-B1E31735 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 17:33:15 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B1B071B06B9; Mon, 12 May 2014 17:33:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 58F781B0744; Mon, 12 May 2014 17:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53713E17.3010608@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:33:11 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: PHP internals , Andrea Faulds References: <53712E8B.9000406@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] phpng, migration guide draft From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > I disagree. These changes are perfectly valid as rfc and should be > proposed as any other changes. > By this principle, everything in PHP introduced since we have the wiki should live under rfc namespace, since it was a change which has to be proposed as an RFC. I think such usage of rfc namespace makes it useless as it would mix pages pertaining to the rfc process as such (proposing the change, discussing it, etc.) with pages used to document various things. > It can be one of the new things for 6, maybe the 1st one to begin with. That's why we need a namespace for new things for 6. And phpng is as good name as any :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227