On 7 במרץ 2013, at 23:00, David Soria Parra <d...@php.net> wrote:
> On 2013-03-07, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote: >> On 03/07/2013 09:01 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: >> >>> So my proposal is to slow down for a minute and not call this RFC >>> accepted or not until we can come to some consensus as to if it >>> classifies as a language change or not... Better to clarify for the >>> health of the project than to plow through and risk causing further >>> strife... >> >> And how do you propose we do that? Vote on it? Will that vote need 2/3 >> as well? I think most of us accepted that language-level changes meant >> syntax changes. Things that add new features to the language itself. > > I think the only thing requiring a 2/3 vote would be the decision on > wheather to enable it by default or not. As long as it's in ext/ > and not enabled a 50% should be sufficient. Not that I worry, but how do we reach that conclusion? Rasmus had a good point. We didn't even vote about interned strings (and that's a good thing), and I'm doubtful that if we did find it necessary to vote for it, we'd find that more than 51% is needed. How is enabling O+ different? Or do we need a vote, and even a 2/3 vote, for every significant perf improvement? Again, I don't really worry - given that 94% of voters voted in favor of embracing O+ (and honestly I'd love to get wider user feedback from 5.5 evaluators before we take this call) - but I'm worried that 2/3 voting requirement will become arbitrary, and not what it was designed to serve - a way from protecting the language from a flood of irreversible changes. Zeev -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
