Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75273 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62940 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2014 01:09:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jul 2014 01:09:55 -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 192.64.116.216 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.216 imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.216] ([192.64.116.216:58702] helo=imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 36/D4-30974-3E1A8B35 for ; Sat, 05 Jul 2014 21:09:55 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915B22400C3; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 21:09:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap10.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap10.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id xsCqSeUE5_vg; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 21:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andreas-air.home (host86-172-51-137.range86-172.btcentralplus.com [86.172.51.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A5DC24005D; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 21:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) In-Reply-To: <53B8A0A8.3050308@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 02:09:46 +0100 Cc: Kris Craig , Zeev Suraski , PHP Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <430CBFF3-13BC-4CDA-A684-0DC31F7A23E3@ajf.me> References: <61EEC54E-7B8D-433E-A391-75F8D6A41E79@ajf.me> <650742796f119ed972a688a58e02242b@mail.gmail.com> <53B8A0A8.3050308@gmx.de> To: Christoph Becker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 6 Jul 2014, at 02:04, Christoph Becker wrote: > Andrea Faulds wrote: >=20 >> I can see Zeev=92s point that 7 is the main other option (though I = also >> think 6.1, or codenames, are possible though unlikely other options). >> However, I don=92t want to call a 50%+1 6/7 vote because it just = feels >> like too narrow of a majority. I suppose if that 6 yes/no vote fails, >> I might consider a 50%+1 6/7 vote. >=20 > Have you considered a 6 vs. 7 vs. other vote, which would require a > majority (i.e. > 50%) to pass? In my first reply to Zeev, I said I was opposed to having a 6/7/other = vote with a plurality, but a 50%+1 vote of that kind might be more = tolerable. Then again, the =93other=94 votes might ensure nothing = passes. To be honest, I=92d much rather just do a 6/7 50%+1 vote in that = case. I suppose I could also do a 6/7 2/3 majority vote in place of the 6 = yes/no 2/3 majority vote the RFC proposes, though then again, you=92d = have the question of what to do if neither gets an outright majority. Of = course we have that problem anyway with a yes/no 2/3 majority vote. Argh, I need some sleep. I=92ll think about it further and respond in = the morning. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/