Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84901
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.171 as permitted sender)
References: <BLU436-SMTP63B4758D2D902644C6BB24E2050@phx.gbl>
	<d29a6faab8dd07ce62f6df153c400b03@mail.gmail.com>	<CALwr1GnMyQrJno24k+hC5WobE29VsQJqcirBYm5XucjW2dxWQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6e268626bc6b84a3886f39442c827bb6@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAyV7nEOpN74zNbc9maU9z-LUcOGN4xyAYi2_EGvv04brezdkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<bc4d2110a723924349c67ccb8d6f8990@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c-uWP0RKsuHRAx0pPOj9wrysthjgouTc4SECaZgkujJGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-uWP0RKsuHRAx0pPOj9wrysthjgouTc4SECaZgkujJGg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQKV59C6R/g00R7Uu5aQCj/uhXIapAFVjcT/AZ4zTjMDUyhKxQLGYVwYAs7zePsCU4OIfpshaXoQ
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:23:19 +0200
Message-ID: <9cc36c9a8c15ba411a8f2981ff18678c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> Sorry, but ... even though your original RFC was very unclear about this,
> everybody went by the "all votes must start by the 15th" interpretation
> that
> has been discussed in that thread. Do you think it's an accident that a
> whopping six RFC votes started today? It isn't.
>
>
> Please don't start reinterpreting things to fit your needs. I am
> personally
> totally fine with extending the PHP 7 timeline by say one month - but if
> we do
> that, let's make it official and applying to everyone, not just some
> particular
> RFC. I know for sure that there are a number of additional RFCs that would
> have been submitted for PHP 7 had anyone known that it'll be allowed.

First off, this is Bob's interpretation which he brought up on Friday.  Yes,
ideally I would have read the original text during the discussion period and
commented on it, but I didn't.  I think the 3 month period for
implementation (that's mostly done) and testing gives a very reasonable time
period to absorb the most lax of interpretations.

I think it would be a shame to delay the timeline for this, but I also think
it would be a shame for the timeline - that was *clearly* not designed to
create de-facto bias towards one RFC or the other - to do exactly that.

Even if we were to push the timeline out by a bit, how do we do it?  An RFC
with a minimum discussion period of two weeks and another week for a vote?
That kind of defeats the purpose.  A gentlemen's agreement?  Something else?

Zeev