On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Michael Wallner <mike.php....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 27 07 2014, at 02:53, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> So even IF you want to reduce the scope of the 2/3 requirement to language >> impacts in userland only, your RFC *still* falls under that requirement >> because it directly affects the language itself in userland, as described >> above. I would again invite you to reconsider your position on this and >> avoid a protracted fight on this that would only serve to split the >> community. > > > I’m actually not sure why we even have to vote on PHP-NG?
As it is surely a rhetoric question, let leave it, ok? > How about for the crusaders to build something comparable to put up to vote > against PHP-NG? > > There isn’t? Well, then let’s go ahead. Simple. > > Rolling eyes, > Mike > > > PS: My dog wants voting rights because he feels like he’ll be affected by > changes to PHP. This kind of post surely brings us a huge step forward. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
