Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74349
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3547690578979402956@unknownmsgid>
References: <CAF+90c8m8kMNjHOOKWs3iTxnLSVv41pk0mGjgzvvp2+Lieh+ig@mail.gmail.com>
	<53788337.9090006@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU7XM3Sihz0KyEpfPpYMeLZXvrz-H8SmD4LnP9gDRjNXiA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53789AD9.40109@lerdorf.com>
	<3547690578979402956@unknownmsgid>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 11:05:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4n2LSGUQoHjg4SkoqdL=+7h_OGQhAc7HsMpKFWudsi1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Rethinking 64bit sizes and PHP-NG
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> Well put.  In the strangeness of voting on an implementation RFC, I
> don't see how it makes sense to talk about "side effects".  They're
> the very essence of the patch and the reason it's being opposed.
>
> If there's a better way to so it, let's see it.  The sensible thing to
> do would be implementing it for phpng, seeing a *final* version of the
> patch and it's consequences, and then making an informed decision.

If I get your point correctly, you are asking to provide the final
version of a patch against phpng, which is not even in alpha stage,
mvoing target and APIs, etc. That's not possible.

> Even without it, Nikita's proposal seems as a much better baseline
> everyone can agree on.

It would help if you actually read replies instead of systematically
negate this proposal and how things are supposed to work here. Let
alone the calls for -1 based on wrong numbers and facts. This is wrong
in so many ways.

Now, what would have happened if we did what you are saying for
opcache? It would most likely not be in the voting phase if we
consider all supported platforms or changes happening since the votes
began. It would be time to be a little bit serious and consistent if
you really want to agree on something.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org