Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83213
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nEXrCvXERpuL0EEg56UsAwH0n5iMD9Qn8x35YnS7AC5xA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a25095424ba7a260f9a149a5711afa61@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU4GxwmU8ob1O-h1LuV=ytetvw9JoZT-t+R67ZrFtMXCxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d5727e3a60c13bfad525df16948e9634@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU6z4-sUdnBdBtSq+TzB-RiSceFPEuirSnWdDSsGN6_2JA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL0xaBEj-hSrCRV68usiuO+=zrRT_-PcJBOg9SxfsJ3eAinoGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU4X6_q2zoLEAY+q=vouK4TB2uiruK5v-_65LJ_E3RKpFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL0xaBHrMFu6AAi-B7TR3hrVmae_+xnb2mA_1nHq1JaxvKwUAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nEXrCvXERpuL0EEg56UsAwH0n5iMD9Qn8x35YnS7AC5xA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:51:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL0xaBE_oJybZbUXAhsb876caHhgUL+vjLM6Zj2Eu08up0BXCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f50316c09be05050f72e9c7
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5)
From: arvids.godjuks@gmail.com (Arvids Godjuks)

--e89a8f50316c09be05050f72e9c7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2015-02-19 17:41 GMT+02:00 Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>:

> Arvids,
>
> > I meant it in a way that no other RFC has failed so many times or had so
> > much misunderstanding or divide.
>
> No scalar type proposal has made it through a vote. So none of them
> have technically failed (all except the current one were withdrawn).
>


Technically - agreed, but overall you can see how it may be considered as
"failed" :)


>
> > Sometimes it is required to ditch the preferences of people and do stuff
> > for the greater good. Right now I see most people (not all) pushing their
> > own agendas not really giving a damn over the big picture, the timeline
> and
> > the fact that at this moment RFC already too late for 7.0 according to
> the
> > Release Process RFC - they cannot be discussed and voted before the
> feature
> > freeze. Yes, it can be pushed rather easily, but it means breaking the
> > release process RFC again. See the pattern here?
>
> Well, 0.5, as a minor tweak on 0.3 *could* (by the RFC process) go to
> vote on the 25th. Which would end on the 11th. A full 4 days before
> freeze. Without breaking the release process.
>
> However, I would be happy to target 7.1 even if the vote passes prior
> to freeze (assuming an RFC to reserve the scalar type names is
> proposed and passes, otherwise 8.0).
>
> My reason for pushing for the vote is not to get it into 7, but to get
> it over with. We've been discussing these proposals for years. We have
> one that came extremely close to passing (save for a few minor issues
> people voted no to, which are now fixed). Let's get it behind us.
>

At this point my main concern is the fact that it's going to be rushed.
Rushed means mistakes, things overlooked and timeline getting shifted like
with 5.6. The overall picture (maybe i'm thinking like a RM here).


>
> > And we have the 0.4 version still being made, so it means it will be out
> > for discussion probably next week. Or may not.
>
> No, it's not being made. See the first post to this thread.
>
> Anthony
>

I read the mails and my feeling is that something is brewing between Sara,
Zeev and Francois. At least that's my impression, that people are working
and they will have something to show. I never saw a direct "we are dropping
it", just a vague "it's essentially dead" addressed directly to me by
Francois and after that he started to be even more active. So, all
indications, something's happening :)

--e89a8f50316c09be05050f72e9c7--