On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote: > > On 03/07/2013 08:26 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > >> That being said, if o+ would have 2/3 of the votes, I think it is > >> possible to get it stable until 5.5 final, not easy but possible. > > > > We already covered that. An opcode cache doesn't affect the language > > itself. There is no new syntax and no BC issues. Much like a performance > > improvement patch that has no effect on the language syntax doesn't need > > 2/3. Whether it is "major" or not, doesn't matter per the established > > voting process. You can't both be a stickler for the details of this > > process and then ignore them when they become inconvenient for you. > > > btw, I would even have included phar as affecting the language, as > even if you don't use it at all in your code, it affects how php > behaves. We had many issues related to phar while it was not used at > all in the code (due to the hooks). That's not exactly the same thing > than o+ but it has the same kind of possible impacts. > > And there comes the true definition of "affects language behavior". We still don't agree each other of what a "major" change, and a "minor" one are, *and* : do we talk about user-level changes, or internals changes ? Or both ? That definitely needs to be clarified, or Anthony's idea of no distinction on any RFC and make them require 2/3 to be accepted as well. Julien.Pauli
