Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74179 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 83041 invoked from network); 14 May 2014 09:40:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 May 2014 09:40:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.200 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.200 imap1-2.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.200] ([192.64.116.200:40695] helo=imap1-2.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F9/50-15285-BF933735 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 05:40:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980D120008C; Wed, 14 May 2014 05:40:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap1.ox.registrar-servers.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap1.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 33Pu0nFoV8sU; Wed, 14 May 2014 05:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.200] (unknown [90.203.28.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 692D3200096; Wed, 14 May 2014 05:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_021894B8-AF6D-4563-9077-05E08C751932" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 10:40:02 +0100 Cc: Ferenc Kovacs , Zeev Suraski , Nikita Popov , PHP Internals Message-ID: <9EBA64F4-9A75-4DD1-9DB3-17F78B329BE7@ajf.me> References: To: Kris Craig X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] 64 bit platform improvements for string length and integer From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) --Apple-Mail=_021894B8-AF6D-4563-9077-05E08C751932 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 14 May 2014, at 10:37, Kris Craig wrote: > I agree with Ferenc as far as the vote percentage is concerned. = Though I > support this RFC, it seems pretty obvious that this represents a = major, > fundamental change to the codebase, sufficient to warrant the 66%+1 > requirement outlined in the RFC process. I hope it passes, but the = RFC > should be updated to reflect the supermajority vote requirement, in my > opinion. Why 66%+1, by the way? I can understand 50%+1, as that ensures a = majority, but for 66% you already have a majority, so the +1 seems = unreasonable. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ --Apple-Mail=_021894B8-AF6D-4563-9077-05E08C751932--