Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76180
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <678E1F20-9F37-49DF-B48A-097B17389586@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>
	<CAKOpQSy23uvHaEKoToumHkewO9Adve-zPv_c-vFwn6xUcJ9u5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<a97b0acfb4c6cc2b7ad33c4fe156fb28@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSxxEzT-hhkvgeffXPtTkYFDZuws317yrECLfrZTWq+kEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<678E1F20-9F37-49DF-B48A-097B17389586@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:23:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSxMC03sRvW3CtW9c=3vCkq83Acz8vKddK0i_iz_KRm4Jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2fad0020b6504ff26d87d
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--001a11c2fad0020b6504ff26d87d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On 27 07 2014, at 02:53, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So even IF you want to reduce the scope of the 2/3 requirement to
> language
> > impacts in userland only, your RFC *still* falls under that requirement
> > because it directly affects the language itself in userland, as describ=
ed
> > above.  I would again invite you to reconsider your position on this an=
d
> > avoid a protracted fight on this that would only serve to split the
> > community.
>
>
> I=E2=80=99m actually not sure why we even have to vote on PHP-NG?
>
> How about for the crusaders to build something comparable to put up to
> vote against PHP-NG?
>
> There isn=E2=80=99t? Well, then let=E2=80=99s go ahead. Simple.
>

To answer your question (sort-of), the alternative to PHP-NG is what we
have right now.  I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I certainly
am not opposed to PHP-NG, even though Zeev seems to think so.  I just don't
think it's ready to be merged into master yet, based on everything I've
seen, including concerns raised by others more knowledgeable than I on this
list.  I also just want to make sure something so massive in scope isn't
pushed through by a slim majority, especially since doing so would violate
the Voting RFC as it's currently written and would probably lead to an ugly
fight among those who have RW+ access.

I actually like PHP-NG and what it strives to do.  I just think its
developers are jumping the gun and trying to force something through that
many in the community feel is not yet ready for deployment.  I honestly
don't understand why there's such a rush and why people who are calling for
things to slow down so that cooler heads can prevail are being demonized
and mocked.  It's not "you're either with us or you're against us."  I
don't oppose PHP-NG simply because I want to make sure all the ducks are in
a row before it's deployed.

Here's my question to counter yours, Michael:  What's the rush?

--Kris

--001a11c2fad0020b6504ff26d87d--