Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82730
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54E0CC00.3050809@lerdorf.com>
References: <6FD9B9A4-E831-4D4F-AD66-BD04D8C37991@ajf.me>
	<CABBJUpcpUiXTX4hv=Lj6JMWhxRriV8c+8kD50gUk7Cq-hhqM+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<8814DFF5-3B94-4B2D-8A02-49B17AC307F5@ajf.me>
	<54E0CC00.3050809@lerdorf.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 09:24:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4m8WqMyJsZq_hBrRxjhhjDA2-UUu-KnTD_YS_GTKdz2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Xinchen Hui <laruence@php.net>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Big Integer Support
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
> On 02/15/2015 05:45 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> 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 t=
o hold a vote on this RFC. The implementation isn=E2=80=99t finished, but t=
he remaining work isn=E2=80=99t impossible to surmount (though help would c=
ertainly be appreciated). RFCs can be put to vote without implementations (=
or so says https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto), so the fact the implementation =
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 .
>>
>> This vote isn=E2=80=99t to be thought of as accepting the implementation=
, merely the feature. If the implementation isn=E2=80=99t good enough, the =
feature could actually be dropped for PHP 7, as much as I hope that won=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.

No we do not. Many things are not yet stable or will change until 1st
beta (or after). It is not realistic nor fair to ask for perfect
implementation for such thing. And the time argument is really just an
excuse, we got the same issue with the 64bit patch, asking for a
perfect patch while php7 did not event exist at this point.

It only tells me we need a two phases RFCs for proposals like that. Or
proposers simply waste their time because of such votes.

> 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.

Too bad.

Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org