Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76073
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLu7n+Lsunu_qp3SQbzeLVKB9bxDtW6MXGeUWMWRcoioQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b39ebab3d19d76cda9bafa25919c0e67@mail.gmail.com>
	<53CF4146.5080800@sugarcrm.com>
	<ea7a80e05193b8a055747d8cee88a45f@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLtYT_DSE1yu2KEWiHc=AVbG0WXYCUQBBcvWp6=RyNA=WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c-08VYr+GudtXUjTTjkO383zBe+NC+tqbx9r1g7AB3Gog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLsNbtYEeAq9wN2ChT+cs4Tdcd-7j05EyGMwnva-Rx_9_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5HsJZ_pPw-JsrMfCJL=EdGbmw-2JZiTbSRY18UZQJTAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLu7n+Lsunu_qp3SQbzeLVKB9bxDtW6MXGeUWMWRcoioQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:39:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSwB7WH2K+bvXuvSxUvo0frkBW6wYqYgsBuUcDYOqVMfeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011847a2da4d4c04fef74972
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--089e011847a2da4d4c04fef74972
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

> one week - two weeks - months - years.
> I'll wait.
> I know what I'm doing. I'll make it.
>
> Dmitry.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 24, 2014 10:13 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > agree,
> > >
> > > I just don't see any blockers, except for Pierre.
> >
> > Come on Dmitry, I am not the only who has asked that.
> >
>

Just to throw in my usual two-cents, it seems to me that this RFC is very
premature.  It's the same sort of over-eagerness I saw in the front-page
news post a few weeks back.  I understand what you guys are trying to
accomplish and I applaud you for it, but as far as I can see, it's still
quite a ways away from being ready for prime time.  And yet, you seem to be
acting like it's already there.

Aside from the code needing to be ready/tested, you also need to have a
more matured collaboration with community folks outside your project like
Pierre, which at the moment appears to be downright hostile.  Even if the
code looked great and everything else was in place, I would never vote to
switch over to such a drastic new schema when there's this much animosity
and controversy surrounding it.  I keep reading complaints about questions
being ignored and conflicting stories about secrecy and process.  I also
think there's some merit to the concern raised about the ambiguity being a
prelude to patches being rejected over trivial concerns.

I think you guys need to slow down and mend a few fences if you want to
make this happen.  As much as I like the goals of this project, I'm forced
to vote -1 for now, as well.  I just think you're jumping the gun when
there are too many unanswered questions/concerns still out there.

--Kris

--089e011847a2da4d4c04fef74972--