Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74562 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 69617 invoked from network); 28 May 2014 12:07:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 May 2014 12:07:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:37780] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 03/57-30361-F61D5835 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 08:07:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3552310D6AC; Wed, 28 May 2014 13:07:08 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 13:07:08 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Pierre Joye cc: Rasmus Lerdorf , Anatol Belski , PHP internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <53788337.9090006@lerdorf.com> <53789AD9.40109@lerdorf.com> <537A35D9.50807@lerdorf.com> <537A3756.4060900@lerdorf.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Rethinking 64bit sizes and PHP-NG From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Wed, 28 May 2014, Pierre Joye wrote: > On May 28, 2014 1:38 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 May 2014, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 19 May 2014, Anatol Belski wrote: > > > > > > > Confused about what is happening. I thought we reached the > > > > agreement based on what Nikita has suggested, which is pretty > > > > simple. > > > > > > I'm confused too, mostly because with the ML problems, I missed a > > > lot of the discussion. I think it would be best to close the > > > current RFC and voting, make sure there is a new "correct" RFC and > > > restart the vote. If all the concerns that are raised by various > > > people have been included, then, I think that's a much clearer way > > > to figure out what we'd be voting for. > > > > Did anything happen with this? > > Waiting that the ML is fixed to push an updated rfc and patch. That makes sense :-) I pinged Wez, lets see if he can help fixing the ML. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine