Basic STH - status & unofficial poll

Truth be told that might just be a record for number of no votes in a 10
minutes window! :) Also I thought this was all about elephants ...

Stelian,

Respectfully, I think internals@ is being just a bit too uptight here.
First, I did ask Bob before doing this, and while he said he thought it
wasn't a good idea (mostly because of feedback such as yours) - he didn't
'block' me.

Secondly, can we all relax a bit with the rules, RFCs, legalese and what's
allowed and not allowed to do? It's a simple POLL. I'm not abusing
anything, I'm not pretending it replaces the vote and I actually know
there'd be at least some people that won't vote in the same way that they
would in case Basic really comes up for a vote. It's to gauge the waters,
nothing more, and nothing less.

Last, it's completely identical to me asking on the list how people would
vote in case Bob's RFC became available for a vote. Except it's a lot
easier to track and much more likely to get a large number of responses.

Let's not make an elephant out of a mouse. FWIW, so far I'm getting
excellent cooperation from the Strict campers on this unofficial poll :)

Zeev

-----Original Message-----
From: stelian.mocanita@gmail.com [mailto:stelian.mocanita@gmail.com]
On Behalf Of Stelian Mocanita
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 11:11 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Basic STH - status & unofficial poll

Now you are just pushing the limits and doing things your way. Bob
clearly
stated he does not want a vote and you want with an "unofficial poll"?

You need to learn to let things go their course and not always push
matters
your way. I do not see how you can pull this move yet still be offended
when
people call you out on political moves.

I hereby kindly ask you to retract this "unofficial poll" and let things
go their
way, whatever they might be.

  All,



  First, I decided not to propose Basic STH under my name, despite

the

fact I
think that not committing to put it to a vote adds unneeded risk
for
delivering STH in PHP 7.0. Whether or not it’s put to a vote will
be up
to
Bob.

  Secondly, I do want to attempt to understand what will happen if &

when the
Basic STH RFC goes to a vote at some later point in the future
(which
according to Bob, will happen if the Dual Mode RFC fails). If I
see
that
Basic STH is going to fail, I’ll change my vote to be in favor of
the
Dual
Mode STH RFC, call upon everyone to do the same, and retract my
Coercive
mode RFC.

  This unofficial-non-RFC poll is here:

wiki.php.net/notrfc/scalar_type_hints

  Thanks,



  Zeev

Stelian,

Respectfully, I think internals@ is being just a bit too uptight here.
First, I did ask Bob before doing this, and while he said he thought it
wasn't a good idea (mostly because of feedback such as yours) - he didn't
'block' me.

Secondly, can we all relax a bit with the rules, RFCs, legalese and what's
allowed and not allowed to do? It's a simple POLL.

I won't relax on the rules sorry.

If there is a more consensus based group I would, maybe, on very rare
occasions. But right now, I wouldake them harder and find a way to enforce
them instead of relaxing them.

Now talking about the ability or will to find compromises, I have to
remember you what we (Anatol and team) did for the 64bit RFC, which was
accepted. We did not apply it as we could have done. It would have spared
us weeks of work but we did not. It would have given us exactly what we
wanted but we did not.

We instead decided to work with your team (phpng) so your team and php at
large won't suffer. And know what? It works out of the box.

That's why I have it to say it again, take a step back and reconsider your
stance on this whole thing. What is best for php, its contributor and what
will make us be seen as a team, what will make us act as a team. Because
right now all we show is that we are doing politics, it damages php, get
our most valuable contributors to leave the project and prevent new ones to
come.

I am not over analyzing that, it is a matter of facts and we must stop this
madness.

I voted no just because at this point no matter which way STH goes, it
will end bad so I would rather not have it until people reconcile on
something that works for all parties.

There does seem to be a general assumption that a 2/3rds majority
actually want type hinting in PHP7? There has been no real vote on that?
YES those of us who don't find that this will add anything useful to an
existing stable code base can ignore them and simply not add any to our
own code, but the key libraries are going to 'modernise' and add them so
we have to live with all of the consequences. Adding a switch for
'strict' on top of that process just makes managing use of libraries
even more complex going forward.

I know where I am going moving forward and for the foreseeable future
any library updates that result in it failing to work with PHP5.4 will
be sidelined and only security updates allowed. There ARE a number of
urgently needed tidy ups being included already in the current codebase
making an upgrade important, but a number of other things being added
fall in the camp of 'personal use' as has happen over a number of
additions in the PHP5 development. Type hinting may be a popular
improvement, but as has been demonstrated it's not coming up with a
single most popular implementation?

Even this unofficial poll is not asking the basic question? If I was
looking at it in isolation I would say the result is strongly against
type hinting ... but that is NOT what is being asked?

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL

Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk