Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79099
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B60B4972-F30A-4F14-97B9-C2E5F75399EE@zend.com>
References: <3d131946349b68aa2ae26dcfeaa5197a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1416557888.27517.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<CAKOpQSxCh6qYVM2D13_D=Ykung6q=CWs6ZkZkXKPFHHmzr4Gbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSzJFBFigFE-7r72NvxDOtzsEmLgi9uiwKdhsS22SO8RPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B60B4972-F30A-4F14-97B9-C2E5F75399EE@zend.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:50:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSyizAVRJCJmWo66Lx_GvEYQ-0vPHvX2V46r7Y7dmdR3pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cd5160011c005086cfbc4
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] PHP 7.0 timeline
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--001a113cd5160011c005086cfbc4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> Kris,
>
> This existed in the RFC since the get go and I don't believe anybody
> raised any concerns about it.  There was plenty of time for discussion.
> Either way approval of this RFC won't have any effect on the approval or
> rejection of other RFCs.
>

I have to agree with the concerns raised by Levi and Pierre regarding this
matter.  Regardless of the reasons, too much time has passed since those
discussions for them to really be relevant today, and it does feel a bit
sudden to have this suddenly pop-out for a vote after all this time and
without any warning.

As far as the issue I raised is concerned, didn't I raise that same concern
during the last discussion?  I could be mistaken, but now that you mention
it, I don't think this is the first time I've raised concerns about that.

Besides, the whole "I can't focus on that because it's not important"
argument just doesn't make any sense to me.  It adds nothing to the RFC and
would literally take like 5 seconds to remove; probably about the same time
it took for you to explain in that email why it wasn't worth removing.  In
any case, I am definitely raising concern about it now and I'm not aware of
any rule saying that's not permitted.  If you like, I'll even fix it for
you with your permission (since it's literally just removing a single
sentence) so you don't have to waste any time/energy dealing with it.


> Kris, All - I'm now on a 7th day straight of a paralyzing 39.5C
> temperature.  Let's focus on what matters.  I at least don't have energy to
> respond to the rest.
>

Holy shit that sucks!  I can certainly understand your lack of patience in
dealing with issues surrounding this RFC.  Unfortunately, they are
important-- at least, they're important to the people who are raising
them.  It may be prudent for you to find someone you trust to help you
address them given your situation.  Either way, this abrupt vote after such
a long pause does concern me, as does the apparent lack of willingness to
discuss concerns with it.  These are just my opinions, of course, but for
whatever it's worth, I have some serious concerns about this.

--Kris

--001a113cd5160011c005086cfbc4--