Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74300
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.128.171 cause and error)
References: <A3E9D7E0-5C10-48AD-B141-F3D72B74A235@ajf.me> <4818449979808f1f4d0fcdc1409d9e04@mail.gmail.com>
 <A5BF8ADD-121B-487B-8FA3-DCAAA254362E@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <A5BF8ADD-121B-487B-8FA3-DCAAA254362E@ajf.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJEUJ97sMmembt+C+4/dyqcJc5t6wKM8CXoAmpo09aaM7lBYA==
Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 23:22:39 +0300
Message-ID: <7a8ddc7c01b244fff7589d8c2cdeeeaa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Proposal to increase the required majority for all RFCs
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:ajf@ajf.me]
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:51 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal to increase the required majority for
all RFCs
>
>
> On 17 May 2014, at 20:46, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> 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't and can't agree with this. Zend changes will ultimately affect
everyone.
>
> It is not just Zend maintainers who'll be affected by the 64-bit patch,
for
> example. Everyone would, as it would increase PHP's memory usage.

In (the unlikely) case that Zend/ maintainers decide to do something that
negatively affects PHP - in this case memory usage - then it becomes
everyone's problem and everyone's entitled to a vote.  But not before the
Zend/ maintainers see the implementation-only (feature-free) patch
suitable for inclusion in the engine, which wouldn't have happened here.
Similarly, if the docs guys decide to switch to another platform but the
generated docs remain unchanged - it's their and only their decision.  If
as a part of that change then suddenly docs suddenly have bloated HTML
that takes 500MB of memory to render, then it's everyone's vote.

FWIW, rest assured this is purely theoretical matter.   In 15+ years, I
don't think there was a single patch condoned by the Zend/ maintainers
that negatively affected performance without otherwise bringing tangible
value (typically in the form of new features, which are now voted on by
everyone).  It's always the opposite - in a nutshell, Zend/ maintainers
are crazy for performance.  And I'm sure the doc team wouldn't move to a
tool that emits such poor HTML either.

Zeev