Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84749
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain proposaltech.com does not designate 216.39.63.74 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <1426290732.53996.6284.camel@proposaltech.com>
To: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:52:12 -0700
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP114AB742F61FF344E0C5AD4E2070@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU436-SMTP234CAFED9639237DE430B18E2190@phx.gbl>
	 <325E0097-FD7E-4997-A95D-20C62368E162@zend.com> <55031C54.6060802@eliw.com>
	 <CAMc0WS5MJ_RAtNO47R4wQjy8_YSDzzZeGECLUnzSVOAmB2JyPw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAFp73Xtk4-o=DjipY4niopmgg+JC+Yyju_oxUWKWEHqMgQoiOA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7CE491F0-C243-4788-ADA2-5DA9DF1D1168@php.net>
	 <d40df0c5636fccd2dd672ad1a4b72ced@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAEPJdukMnxn+Rjxy7tN0oSfoD_ryNwKDRLjJF6AAwGoWGH8WQA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <332304ae552bfc635f999a8d73b505f0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <BLU436-SMTP2006B651941E5F110906973E2070@phx.gbl>
	 <7de9d64ab85cad86836b43c8acbed439@mail.gmail.com>
	 <BLU436-SMTP114AB742F61FF344E0C5AD4E2070@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
From: truth@proposaltech.com (Todd Ruth)

On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 00:22 +0100, Bob Weinand wrote:
> > Am 14.03.2015 um 00:14 schrieb Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>:
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobwei9@hotmail.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:07 AM
> >> To: PHP Internals List
> >> Cc: Zeev Suraski; guilhermeblanco@gmail.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
> >> 
> >> I won't go into vote tomorrow.
> >> 
> >> Given that we already discussed that proposal a lot a few months ago
> >> (Andreas v1), we can go for a discussion phase a bit shorter (like 10 days
> >> total), but I won't put a new RFC into vote tomorrow. Especially as it's
> >> still
> >> being heavily discussed.
> >> 
> >> Also, this vote is just valid in case where other votes fail - so we
> >> actually
> >> don't *compete* with Anthonys RFC. It doesn't affect the voting period of
> >> Anthonys RFC. We can have the vote still going on a few days after both
> >> RFCs failed.
> >> This RFC is only about the common part of both RFCs.
> > 
> > Bob,
> > 
> > If you don't put it into a vote by Sunday, then by definition it can't get
> > into v7.0 - unless we either have another vote to delay the timeline (big
> > hassle).  Plus, as you can see, there are people (heck, even me) that would
> > vote in favor of the Dual Mode RFC just because there's no alternative.
> > 
> > Zeev
> 
> Zeev,
> 
> If I put it into vote until Sunday, we're breaking the voting process. Which required an apt discussion phase which definitely isn't given when we start Sunday.
> 
> Also. Your timeline RFC leaves a bit room for interpretation ("Line up" means? Put into discussion? Vote? Have votes all already accepted?) . If necessary, I'll rather push timeline a bit than breaking vote process.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob

If people (including Zeev) would not vote for Anthony's RFC knowing that
Bob's RFC will be put to a vote later, but would vote for Anthony's RFC
without Bob's RFC coming next, it sounds like Bob's RFC competes with
Anthony's RFC.

This whole thing is depressing.  I am confident Zeev means well, but as
a usually silent watcher of this list, I'll give this bystander's view
of the recent discussion:
"I don't like X, but I'll vote for it unless I can get Y approved."
"I can't get Y approved, but I don't want to vote for X; How about Z?"
I know some people consider Z to be common ground because it is a sort
of intersection of X and Y, but it is clear that is not a consensus.

It's a little odd for me to write this email because I am someone who
personally isn't interested in strict typing at all, but the political
games make me sad, so I felt I needed to comment.

I try not to write often, so I'll throw in an off topic comment here:
Thanks, Stas!  I've seen you write many common sense emails responding
to proposals that would make life harder for long time users without
bringing significant benefits.  (Thanks to Lester for doing so also, but
somehow I expect it from Lester and appreciate it more from Stas.
Thanks to you both.)

- Todd