Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74295 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62247 invoked from network); 17 May 2014 19:51:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 May 2014 19:51:01 -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] ([192.64.116.200:36896] helo=imap1-2.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 4D/B1-53190-4ADB7735 for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 15:51:01 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D2220008B; Sat, 17 May 2014 15:50:57 -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 s0s5KfBcD4Mo; Sat, 17 May 2014 15:50:57 -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 60A62200083; Sat, 17 May 2014 15:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) In-Reply-To: <4818449979808f1f4d0fcdc1409d9e04@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 20:50:50 +0100 Cc: PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <4818449979808f1f4d0fcdc1409d9e04@mail.gmail.com> To: Zeev Suraski X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal to increase the required majority for all RFCs From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 17 May 2014, at 20:46, Zeev Suraski wrote: > Implementation changes don't fit in this RFC process too well. > Implementation changes should be dealt with by those who own the > implementation. I don=92t and can=92t agree with this. Zend changes will ultimately = affect everyone. It is not just Zend maintainers who=92ll be affected by the 64-bit = patch, for example. Everyone would, as it would increase PHP=92s memory = usage. Also, I am unconvinced that just because the people who maintain Zend = (say) want something, that they are necessarily right. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/