Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76168
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain beberlei.de from 74.125.82.42 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50A62A2B-AED4-4689-B01C-772135E3EA0C@ajf.me>
References: <b39ebab3d19d76cda9bafa25919c0e67@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXaRgqKWG_M3n+H+=6FYqzNVE3hi3VfO8Ji1Ckf9uV+PVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSxkO4xaZP=rsTwdzX6vD9b2qAkqaXCi2CC63sWPrv0J5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPgLKiiWCqFcZyzOAH-OaUWtwhXVi0ZicNW_2PbThbnTd6RKAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSy23uvHaEKoToumHkewO9Adve-zPv_c-vFwn6xUcJ9u5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<a97b0acfb4c6cc2b7ad33c4fe156fb28@mail.gmail.com>
	<50A62A2B-AED4-4689-B01C-772135E3EA0C@ajf.me>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 00:49:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEPJdukUETnbxCnjotUoqvxHm0FUG2cup9vKPBtn4Azk2S-J7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>, 
	Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c29ef2d60f2d04ff208102
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
From: kontakt@beberlei.de (Benjamin Eberlei)

--001a11c29ef2d60f2d04ff208102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In that case tthe voting RFC should be improved. The sentence about 1/2 vs
2/3 votes is really ambiguous.
Not fixing it will always lead to discussions over and over again.


On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
> On 26 Jul 2014, at 23:16, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> > *=E2=80=9C**Given that changes to languages (as opposed to changes to a=
pps or
> even
> > frameworks) are for the most part irreversible=E2=80=9D*
> >
> >
> >
> > Implementation improvements such as PHPNG are not irreversible.  New
> > features or changed features are.  This deals with language features,
> that
> > once we publish, we cannot take back as people already start using them=
.
> >
> >
> >
> > *=E2=80=9Cthe purpose of the vote is to ensure that there's strong supp=
ort for
> the
> > proposed feature.=E2=80=9D*
> >
> >
> >
> > Is PHPNG a feature?  No, it=E2=80=99s not.  It=E2=80=99s improvements &=
 performance
> > optimizations at the implementation level.  Those who have been followi=
ng
> > my involvement on internals@ over the years know my position about both
> > feature creep and downwards compatibility, and I=E2=80=99m absolutely c=
ertain
> that
> > it was clear to them =E2=80=93 most if not all =E2=80=93 what the meani=
ng here was.
>  That=E2=80=99s
> > 100.0% irrelevant to PHPNG.
>
> For what it=E2=80=99s worth, I=E2=80=99d completely agree with Zeev here.=
 phpng is really
> just an implementation deal, it doesn=E2=80=99t need a 2/3 vote, controve=
rsial or
> no.
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a11c29ef2d60f2d04ff208102--