In that case tthe voting RFC should be improved. The sentence about 1/2 vs 2/3 votes is really ambiguous. Not fixing it will always lead to discussions over and over again.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > On 26 Jul 2014, at 23:16, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > > *“**Given that changes to languages (as opposed to changes to apps or > even > > frameworks) are for the most part irreversible”* > > > > > > > > Implementation improvements such as PHPNG are not irreversible. New > > features or changed features are. This deals with language features, > that > > once we publish, we cannot take back as people already start using them. > > > > > > > > *“the purpose of the vote is to ensure that there's strong support for > the > > proposed feature.”* > > > > > > > > Is PHPNG a feature? No, it’s not. It’s improvements & performance > > optimizations at the implementation level. Those who have been following > > my involvement on internals@ over the years know my position about both > > feature creep and downwards compatibility, and I’m absolutely certain > that > > it was clear to them – most if not all – what the meaning here was. > That’s > > 100.0% irrelevant to PHPNG. > > For what it’s worth, I’d completely agree with Zeev here. phpng is really > just an implementation deal, it doesn’t need a 2/3 vote, controversial or > no. > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
