Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82729
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com designates 209.85.220.49 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <54E0CC00.3050809@lerdorf.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:40:32 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Xinchen Hui <laruence@php.net>
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <6FD9B9A4-E831-4D4F-AD66-BD04D8C37991@ajf.me> <CABBJUpcpUiXTX4hv=Lj6JMWhxRriV8c+8kD50gUk7Cq-hhqM+A@mail.gmail.com> <8814DFF5-3B94-4B2D-8A02-49B17AC307F5@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <8814DFF5-3B94-4B2D-8A02-49B17AC307F5@ajf.me>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="iE44GuJIAIFoDTXUPXG8Cv6bpmfXHoI6I"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Big Integer Support
From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)

--iE44GuJIAIFoDTXUPXG8Cv6bpmfXHoI6I
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 02/15/2015 05:45 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
>> On 15 Feb 2015, at 12:39, Xinchen Hui <laruence@php.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I should=E2=80=99ve done this a long time ago, but I=E2=80=99m going =
to hold a vote on this RFC. The implementation isn=E2=80=99t finished, bu=
t the remaining work isn=E2=80=99t impossible to surmount (though help wo=
uld certainly be appreciated). RFCs can be put to vote without implementa=
tions (or so says https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto), so the fact the implem=
entation is unfinished isn=E2=80=99t necessarily a blocker.
>> for such a big change, the implementation self is also important,
>> there was some RFC accepted with "not good" implementation, which
>> cause lots of troubles for us to maintaining .
>=20
> This vote isn=E2=80=99t to be thought of as accepting the implementatio=
n, merely the feature. If the implementation isn=E2=80=99t good enough, t=
he feature could actually be dropped for PHP 7, as much as I hope that wo=
n=E2=80=99t happen.

At 4 weeks before the feature freeze, we pretty much have to vote for
the implementation as well. Every feature that requires significant work
puts more pressure on a small group of developers and takes their time
away from working on stabilizing the existing code base.

My no vote is based on looking at the implementation, the size of the
patch and the destabilizing changes to the extension API weighed against
its benefits.

-Rasmus


--iE44GuJIAIFoDTXUPXG8Cv6bpmfXHoI6I
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlTgzAAACgkQlxayKTuqOuC6nACdHoHnscKvurA5LG813uZKq3i2
v2QAn3g1NW8mmtrF7tWyEGncnUtFdY+0
=xY2y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--iE44GuJIAIFoDTXUPXG8Cv6bpmfXHoI6I--