Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76099
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain jonstirling.co.uk from 209.85.217.174 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ee82f69c61c35eed02a1ead6c934178a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b39ebab3d19d76cda9bafa25919c0e67@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXaRgqKWG_M3n+H+=6FYqzNVE3hi3VfO8Ji1Ckf9uV+PVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLuWsAwQ3KwFgyizN-xWeo83UEoZYrg6Lg6bG1Rx1-Kv=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee82f69c61c35eed02a1ead6c934178a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:28:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPgKKxW+YW_L+3R2n9Zu=bHizaZuhfjLepVO2ktLESG8EOgG_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93d8c86ead17404ff005bd7
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
From: phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk (Jonny Stirling)

--14dae93d8c86ead17404ff005bd7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Zeev,

Now we're into arguing semantics of the Voting RFC. Whether you meant
something else when you wrote that is now irrelevant, it's what is written
that is the rule, not somebodies individual interpretation surely? "In any
meaning full way" are your words, not what the accepted RFC states.

From what's been said previously, the changes in NG are strictly
implementation changes, i.e. syntax etc remains the same throughout. That's
great, and would require a 50%+1 for vote as far as I can see.

However.

If there are /any/ changes to what end-users would see, that is by
definition a change in the language, no matter how small (or
"meaningless"), you are into 2/3 majority territory.

So, can those who have worked on it confirm with a simple yes / no, are
there changes (right now) that may affect users. Second, if the answer is
"no", is there somebody that can review and confirm that this is the case
that hasn't worked on NG preferably (not because of trust, just because
it's a large changeset which makes it easy to miss stuff and a fresh pair
of eyes is good).

Now. If yes, 2/3 majority is required. It's as simple as that. If no, then
I would suggest starting the review to confirm. I would hope that the
remaining time in the 2 weeks would be enough to accomplish a review, but
somebody correct me if they think otherwise, so the vote start / end should
hopefully be unaffected beyond vote requirements.

Cheers.
Jonny.

--14dae93d8c86ead17404ff005bd7--