Newsgroups: php.internals,php.webmaster
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74550 php.webmaster:19007
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH54+qGf7CzY1Q5r28ck5Fkv0vxQ6_Cj4_y1R1mHHezc7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH-PCH54+qGf7CzY1Q5r28ck5Fkv0vxQ6_Cj4_y1R1mHHezc7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 11:39:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CABDNdAGCSZP0T0ajjzX1VavvjMpvBtbdmLsXxrxDCoyGYrkHtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, php-webmaster <php-webmaster@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] about the latest frontpage entry
From: pjsturgeon@gmail.com (Philip Sturgeon)

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
> isn't.
> Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
> (some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
> others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about phpn=
g).
> There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still n=
ot
> up to our standards imo:
> http://git.php.net/?p=3Dweb/php.git;a=3Dhistory;f=3Darchive/entries/2014-=
05-27-1.xml
> ;
> It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
> think it would be a bad move to just remove it.
>
> Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
> following possible options:
>
>    - keep it as is
>    - remove it
>    - rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
>    atm. not what it could be in the future).
>    - create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
>    core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the proj=
ects
>    official view on the topic.
>
> I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
> welcome to reply.
>
> --
> Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

There probably should have been more of a discussion, but this was a
great move by Joe.

What you lot might not have noticed is a huge amount of FUD going
around the community, mostly thanks to Manuel Lemos - once again -
getting things completely wrong and doing so loudly.

http://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/234-PHPNG-Dramatic-Speedup-Features-Com=
ing-in-PHP-6-Release.html

That article was a huge amount of misfact about what PHPNG is, some
weirdly strong opinions about what it means for PHP (apparently
doomsday is near).

This was then picked up by SitePoint:

http://www.sitepoint.com/php-fights-hhvm-zephir-phpng/

Bruno here based his article around assuming Manuel's article was...
vaguely correct about anything and unfortunately added some wrong
assumptions on top of that. I've spoke to Bruno yesterday and he'll be
updating the article today.


In all, the PHP community at large is confused thanks to people
prematurely announcing stuff from the mailing list like its news, then
adding their opinions on top of it without understanding a damn thing
they're talking about.


Joe could have let that fester, but he approached it with an article.

Now, of course not everyone agrees with the article. When has everyone
on here agreed about anything? We'd probably argue over what color
grass is, because, you know, there's lots of different types of grass
and everything.

If the article is factually wrong about anything then redact the
sentence and update it. Otherwise, it needs to be left alone.

Good job to Joe for keeping his thumb on the pulse of the community.
More of that please.