Afternoon Zeev, I'm going to use unambiguous and direct language to make sure my intentions and concerns are communicated clearly, you can either receive this as a personal attack, or as a contributor being direct, I would prefer the latter.
Let us be clear about the things you are doing: You pushed FFI into php-src on a simple majority, it had one user, was incomplete (with leaks), and had zero justification for being included in php-src - it didn't require any internal API's and can function just fine as a PECL extension, still you pushed through with the RFC and it was accepted on a simple majority. You are now trying to push JIT into php-src on the same slim, clearly unacceptable majority, and even if you change the majority requirements, what's worse is you want to include it in a minor version. Once again, this is an incomplete feature, failing to support the architectures we support and declaring them unimportant. You are pushing PHP towards a future where there is effectively a single contributor, possibly two, able to make changes to Zend+Opcache; You are changing core parts of PHP too fast and making other contributors, including the maintainers of external tooling which the ecosystem requires to function, uncomfortable. I really don't think you have bad intentions, but think our processes are allowing us to make questionable decisions for the whole project, and this I intend to resolve, regardless of your next actions, before any more questionable decisions can be taken. Cheers Joe On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 14:38, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > Joe, > > > > First, you have to wait an absolute minimum of one week, and arguably two > weeks, from the point in time you say you intend to move ahead with the RFC > for a vote. That’s per the ratified Voting RFC, this really isn’t up for > the individual RFC author to decide. It’s clear that an author can’t wake > up a year after a certain discussion and move directly to a vote, even in > the poorly written Voting RFC that’s currently in effect. Given the far > reaching implications of this particular RFC, it’s pretty clear that this > shouldn’t be one of the short, 1-week ones, but I guess this is open for > interpretation (yet another illness of the current Voting RFC that must be > resolved). > > > > Re: JIT - I don’t think we should halt the discussion on the RFC, but I do > think it should require a 2/3 majority – IFF we define the voting rights > and other topics. In other words – we can start discussing the merits and > downsides of the RFC – but should probably wait with the vote itself until > that’s cleared. > > > > For the record, I resent the language you used and the mal-intentions you > attribute to me here. I’ll leave it at that. > > > > Zeev > > > > *From:* Joe Watkins <krak...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:26 PM > *To:* Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> > *Cc:* internals@lists.php.net > *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Abolish Narrow Margins > > > > Afternoon Zeev, > > > > I imagine you will not like what I have to say either: In light of the > recent actions you have taken and are taking to push incomplete software > into php-src on narrow margins, prematurely, it makes perfect sense to > discuss margins independently, and I intend to do so. Your opinion will be > taken into consideration when you cast your vote. > > > > I do insist, and will not be waiting two weeks, unless you agree to delay > the JIT RFC until this issue is resolved. > > > > Cheers > > Joe > > > > > > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 14:07, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Joe Watkins <krak...@gmail.com> > >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:59 PM > >To: internals@lists.php.net > >Subject: [PHP-DEV] RFC Abolish Narrow Margins > > > >Afternoon internals, > > > >Some time ago I brought up for discussion: > >https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins > > > >I intend to bring this up for vote in the next few days. > > Joe, > > Given that time that passed since I brought up my wider-scoped RFC, and > yet haven't pushed it through (some major things were happening on my end, > as you may have heard...) - I can imagine you're not going to like what I'm > going to say, but fundamentally - nothing changed. It still doesn't make > sense, IMHO, to discuss the margin independently of other questions - even > if you explicitly mention them as being outside of the scope of the RFC. > > Also, given the time that passed and the importance of this, it should > require a brand new mandatory 2-week discussion period before we go for a > vote - even if you insist on moving forward with this narrow-scoped RFC. > > At the same time, I'd like to finally solicit feedback explicitly on my > wider-scoped RFC, as I guess we can't wait any longer. I'll send a > separate email about that. > > Zeev > >
