Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76170 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49274 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2014 23:08:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Jul 2014 23:08:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@beccati.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@beccati.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain beccati.com designates 176.9.114.167 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@beccati.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 176.9.114.167 spritz.beccati.com Received: from [176.9.114.167] ([176.9.114.167:55509] helo=mail.beccati.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FD/47-22380-EC434D35 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 19:08:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 2673 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2014 23:08:02 -0000 Received: from home.beccati.com (HELO ?192.168.1.202?) (88.149.176.119) by mail.beccati.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 2014 23:08:02 -0000 Message-ID: <53D434CF.8060300@beccati.com> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 01:07:59 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Faulds , Zeev Suraski CC: Kris Craig , Yasuo Ohgaki , PHP internals References: <50A62A2B-AED4-4689-B01C-772135E3EA0C@ajf.me> In-Reply-To: <50A62A2B-AED4-4689-B01C-772135E3EA0C@ajf.me> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master From: php@beccati.com (Matteo Beccati) On 27/07/2014 00:32, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> Is PHPNG a feature? No, it’s not. It’s improvements & performance >> optimizations at the implementation level. Those who have been following >> my involvement on internals@ over the years know my position about both >> feature creep and downwards compatibility, and I’m absolutely certain that >> it was clear to them – most if not all – what the meaning here was. That’s >> 100.0% irrelevant to PHPNG. > > For what it’s worth, I’d completely agree with Zeev here. phpng is really just an implementation deal, it doesn’t need a 2/3 vote, controversial or no. I agree about the meaning and the fact that phpng is implementation. However if there is some userland BC break, then it should effectively be 2/3, shouldn't it? How about the "Incompatibilities (made on purpose and are not going to be fixed)"? Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/