Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76096
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPgLKiiWCqFcZyzOAH-OaUWtwhXVi0ZicNW_2PbThbnTd6RKAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b39ebab3d19d76cda9bafa25919c0e67@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXaRgqKWG_M3n+H+=6FYqzNVE3hi3VfO8Ji1Ckf9uV+PVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSxkO4xaZP=rsTwdzX6vD9b2qAkqaXCi2CC63sWPrv0J5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPgLKiiWCqFcZyzOAH-OaUWtwhXVi0ZicNW_2PbThbnTd6RKAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:11:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5ODEGGap5MCrgVJ+KK1Wvk_8_1UJr6CQYbCcK4h1+W=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does
>> not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the posit=
ive
>> =E2=80=98side effect=E2=80=99 of their apps running faster.  So while we=
 believe that
>> technically a 50%+1 vote should suffice, we hope to get well over 2/3.
>>
>> If you're not going to delay this, then you should at very least clarify
>> the wording in this section.  You believe 50%+1 should suffice but hope =
to
>> get well over 2/3.  So is the *required* majority 50%+1 or 2/3?
>>
>
> The text I put there is exactly what I think about the subject of require=
d
> majority.  50%+1 is enough for a change that does not effect end users in
> any meaningful way, but I'll be happier if it received a 2/3 majority to
> leave any doubts away.

It affects users, it is a total rewamp of the engine, it requires 2/3.
I fail to understand to see yet another attempt to discard simple RFC
rules.

> I should also point out that, according to the Voting RFC, whether or not
>> an RFC "actually affects end users in any meaningful way" is NOT a facto=
r
>> in determining whether a 2/3 supermajority is required or not.  Here's w=
hat
>> it actually states:
>>
>> > For these reasons, a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax
>> for example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the
>> votes. Other RFCs require 50% + 1 votes to get 'accepted'.
>>
>> Since the phpng RFC already acknowledges that it affects the language
>> itself, this is clearly a 2/3 requirement situation.  Whether it affects
>> end-users or not is irrelevant.  Under current rules, your RFC must have
>> 2/3 support in order to pass.
>>
>
> As the person who wrote that text in the Voting RFC, I can tell you with
> absolute certainty that you are 100% wrong in your interpretation, as I'v=
e
> said numerous times in the past.
> A feature that affects the *language* itself is not a feature that affect=
s
> the *language implementation*.

It affects both, there is no point to argue.


> I updated the section to be fully technical and removed my wish of heart =
to
> get a 2/3 majority.  Although I'd still very much like to get > 2/3, it's
> not required.

It is.


Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org