Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On 2/5/19 1:48 AM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:29 PM Benjamin Eberlei > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:44 AM Dmitry Stogov > wrote: > > Hi Internals, > > > I'm glad to

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On 2/4/19 11:39 PM, Bruce Weirdan wrote: > After figuring out that opcache.jit_buffer_size is specified in bytes > (not in megabytes, as RFC states) Thanks for catching this. Fixed. > I got ~5% speedup running > vimeo/psalm (static analyzer) on its own codebase with default > JIT flags and

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

Hi again, On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:32 AM Kris Craig wrote: > Stripping any existing contributors of our voting rights is a non-starter for > me, period. Any changes must not be applied retroactively, as that would > just lead to all kinds of problems and severe animosity/drama. > > The

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019, 7:18 PM Andrey Andreev Hi, > > I was avoiding this, but since the discussion has already turned into > all about who gets to vote, I might as well ... > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:46 AM Zeev Suraski wrote: > > the barrier to obtaining a vote is ridiculously low. > > You keep

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:20 AM, Andrey Andreev wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM azjezz azj...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, February 4, 2019 2:32 PM, Andrey Andreev n...@devilix.net wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > I could nitpick on

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

Hi, I was avoiding this, but since the discussion has already turned into all about who gets to vote, I might as well ... On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:46 AM Zeev Suraski wrote: > the barrier to obtaining a vote is ridiculously low. You keep saying that, but it hasn't been explained how it is so.

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

Hi, On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM azjezz wrote: > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Monday, February 4, 2019 2:32 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I could nitpick on most of the proposed plan, but I really only wanted > > to reply to this: > > > > > > - A new home page,

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

Den tir. 5. feb. 2019 kl. 02.22 skrev Kalle Sommer Nielsen : > I agree with that as long as it is without the PHP Project boundaries, s/without/within -- regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit:

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

Den tir. 5. feb. 2019 kl. 02.10 skrev Christoph M. Becker : > In my opinion, the question “who is eligible to vote” is closely tied to > the RFC *at hand*. For instance, str_begins() wouldn't be much of a > maintainance burden, and whether it should be included into the PHP core > could very well

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

On Monday, February 4, 2019 5:11 PM, Thomas Hruska wrote: > On 2/4/2019 6:32 AM, Andrey Andreev wrote: > > > Hi, > > I could nitpick on most of the proposed plan, but I really only wanted > > to reply to this: > > > > > > - A new home page, not a "news" page, but a page simply showing the >

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

On Monday, February 4, 2019 5:16 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 15:19, azjezz wrote: > >> I'm not proposing updating the UI and other websites to use, instead rebuild >> all PHP websites. > > I'm not sure what the difference between "updating the UI" and "rebuilding > the

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

On 04.02.2019 at 23:59, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote: > Den søn. 3. feb. 2019 kl. 19.29 skrev Larry Garfield : > >> To answer both you and Sanislav here together, as he raised a similar point, >> that presumes that 100% of the "invited outsiders" vote on every RFC. I >> think >> that is unlikely,

RE: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

> -Original Message- > From: Dan Ackroyd > Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 10:24 PM > To: Zeev Suraski > Cc: PHP internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update) > > On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 06:19, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:14 PM Dan

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

Den søn. 3. feb. 2019 kl. 19.29 skrev Larry Garfield : > > It's not absurd, it's a matter of degrees. As Zeev noted in a later email, > the current voting RFC already calls for some voting-level input from "major > customers", but not a controlling vote. > To use hyperbolic examples: > > Would

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:29 PM Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:44 AM Dmitry Stogov wrote: > >> Hi Internals, >> >> >> I'm glad to finally propose including JIT into PHP. >> >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jit >> >> >> In the current state it may be included both into

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:44 AM Dmitry Stogov wrote: > Hi Internals, > > > I'm glad to finally propose including JIT into PHP. > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jit > > > In the current state it may be included both into PHP-8, where we are > going to continue active improvement, and into PHP-7.4,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

After figuring out that opcache.jit_buffer_size is specified in bytes (not in megabytes, as RFC states) I got ~5% speedup running vimeo/psalm (static analyzer) on its own codebase with default JIT flags and ~7.3% with minimal JIT (1201). PHP+optimizer (-dopcache.jit_buffer_size=0): 32.29s

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:44 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Dmitry Stogov wrote: > >> >> >> On 2/1/19 4:23 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 2/1/19 3:09 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:44 AM Dmitry Stogov > >> >

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Allow void return type variance

Hi Wes Den man. 4. feb. 2019 kl. 05.19 skrev Wes : > > Hello PHPeeps! > > Recent events convinced me to write this RFC :P > > Please have a read here https://wiki.php.net/rfc/allow-void-variance > > I am targeting all the supported PHP versions because this is mainly to > placate the discontent

[PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Making stdClass iterable

Hi all, Following the discussion it's now time to vote on whether we make the stdClass iterable or not. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/iterable-stdclass Note that while there is an implementation available, the vote is only on whether stdClass should fulfil the Traversable interface or not. Nikita had

Re: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process

Hi! >> I want to say that even a small and fairly > simple code change, > which I proposed to push through the bureaucracy, was difficult. > I think this is what Nikita wants to change with this simpler procedure. > More RFCs even on smaller changes, so that more broad input can be > gathered

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Allow void return type variance

Hi! > Recent events convinced me to write this RFC :P > > Please have a read here https://wiki.php.net/rfc/allow-void-variance > > I am targeting all the supported PHP versions because this is mainly to > placate the discontent that arised by PHPUnit enforcing its users to use > void, so

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On 2/4/19 6:22 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:11 PM Dmitry Stogov > wrote: > > > > On 2/4/19 5:44 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Dmitry Stogov > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 9:00 AM Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > >> I want to say that even a small and fairly > > simple code change, > > which I proposed to push through the bureaucracy, was difficult. > > We're discussing RFCs. Small and fairly simple code change does not need > an RFC. I

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

Hi Thomas, I regularly go to the php.net homepage for the live documentation search function just to make sure I'm using functions correctly.  My most frequent search is the date() function for the % code list.  One of these days I'll print out that docs page instead of looking it up every

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 16:11, Thomas Hruska wrote: > For a newbie, I'd say a "Get Started" button that goes to a vetted group > of starter tutorials (maybe videos?) on a variety of subjects could be > valuable. > I know some people love them, but I absolutely hate video introductions. I like to

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 15:19, azjezz wrote: > I'm not proposing updating the UI and other websites to use, instead > rebuild all PHP websites. > I'm not sure what the difference between "updating the UI" and "rebuilding the websites" is. Do you mean that as well as rewriting every HTML and CSS

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

On 2/4/2019 6:32 AM, Andrey Andreev wrote: Hi, I could nitpick on most of the proposed plan, but I really only wanted to reply to this: * A new home page, not a "news" page, but a page simply showing the PHP Logo, a code example maybe and the download link [3]. [...] [3]

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:45 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: > One our hopes in opening this up for comments, is that people would > actually try the code themselves and experiment with it - well beyond what > we can do ourselves. > Is there a docker image with JIT support that people can try?

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:11 PM Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > On 2/4/19 5:44 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Dmitry Stogov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2/1/19 4:23 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2/1/19 3:09 PM,

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 4, 2019 2:02 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 5:15 PM azjezz azj...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > Hello Internals ! > > As @official_php suggested [1], I'm here to propose a new website

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 4, 2019 2:32 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote: > Hi, > > I could nitpick on most of the proposed plan, but I really only wanted > to reply to this: > > > > - A new home page, not a "news" page, but a page simply showing the PHP > > > Logo, a code

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On 2/4/19 5:44 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Dmitry Stogov > wrote: > > > > On 2/1/19 4:23 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > > > > On 2/1/19 3:09 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:44 AM Dmitry

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On 2/4/19 1:32 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > Dmitry Stogov wrote: >> Hi Internals, >> >> >> I'm glad to finally propose including JIT into PHP. >> >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jit >> >> >> In the current state it may be included both into PHP-8, where we are >> going to continue active

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > On 2/1/19 4:23 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > > > > On 2/1/19 3:09 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:44 AM Dmitry Stogov >> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Internals, > >> > >> > >> I'm glad

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:33 PM Andrea Faulds wrote: > A concern I have with the current RFC is a lack of a good case for why > it should be necessary; While this is a subjective opinion, it's definitely a valid one. Unlike phpng (PHP 7) which was a slam dunk - JIT isn't - and whether or not

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 13:33, Andrey Andreev wrote: > > I'm all for a modern look and all, but let's please keep the news on > the index page. Personally, I only go to php.net to look for the news, > changelogs and to search the docs. This image suggests that I'd need > to do an extra click for

Re: [PHP-DEV] New website for the PHP project

Hi, I could nitpick on most of the proposed plan, but I really only wanted to reply to this: > > * A new home page, not a "news" page, but a page simply showing the PHP > > Logo, a code example maybe and > > the download link [3]. > > > > [...] > > > > [3] > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC Weakrefs

On 03/02/2019 22:49, Christoph M. Becker wrote: > > Not sure about removal from the PHP manual. This may never have > happened before (except for PECL/idn which conflicted with ext/intl). > Might be better to discuss this on the doc mailing list. > > F'up2 > Oh, it happened. I deleted

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On 2/1/19 4:23 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > On 2/1/19 3:09 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:44 AM Dmitry Stogov > > wrote: >> >> Hi Internals, >> >> >> I'm glad to finally propose including JIT into PHP. >> >> >>

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Allow void return type variance

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 13:28, Wes wrote: > I know this too. I am often in touch with Levi and void variance is not > covered by his RFC > As a matter of fact, if you try to compile that PR void will behave exactly > like it does now > First of all, apologies as I needed a brush up on the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Disable PEAR by default

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 1:27 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > Hi internals, > > I would like to suggest that installation of PEAR is disabled by default in > PHP 7.4. PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/3781 This thread went a bit off topic, but to return to its original subject - I'm also

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Allow void return type variance

I know this too. I am often in touch with Levi and void variance is not covered by his RFC As a matter of fact, if you try to compile that PR void will behave exactly like it does now My RFC targets 7.2 and 7.3 other than 7.4 >

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Allow void return type variance

I know this, I am talking about this RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/covariant-returns-and-contravariant-parameters Which has been voted and implementation is being worked on a GitHub PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/3732 Your proposal doesn't bring anything new to the table that this RFC

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Allow void return type variance

Covariance from no-type is already supported, since 7.0 https://3v4l.org/I1hZs

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Allow void return type variance

This is normal the Covariance/Contravariance is coming in PHP 7.4 not before. This RFC would also target PHP 7.4 so I don't see how this RFC would change the PHPUnit problem. George P. Banyard On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 12:54, Wes wrote: > Nope, it's not. https://3v4l.org/N4LNb It should've been

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Allow void return type variance

Nope, it's not. https://3v4l.org/N4LNb It should've been fixed. Indeed, many people expected it to work already.

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Allow void return type variance

Isn't this "fixed" with the Covariance/Contravariance RFC which has been voted recently George P. Banyard On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 08:58, Wes wrote: > Hi! > > PHPUnit 8 changed e.g. ` function setUp(){}` to ` function setUp(): > void{} ` and a lot of people did not like being forced to do

[PHP-DEV] Re: RFC Weakrefs

Hi Joe, I like the idea of adding weak references to the PHP core (as opposed to PECL), so I'm generally in favour of this RFC. This type of feature which the engine must be aware of should be maintained as part of it — and it not requiring a PECL extension means it can actually be used by

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

Dmitry Stogov wrote: Hi Internals, I'm glad to finally propose including JIT into PHP. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jit In the current state it may be included both into PHP-8, where we are going to continue active improvement, and into PHP-7.4, as an experimental feature. Thanks. Dmitry.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC Weakrefs

Hello, Joe Watkins wrote: Already taken care of :) On a side note, at what point do we remove stuff from the manual/pecl, the weakref is extension is dead, can't work with current versions of PHP, and there was never a stable release ? I'm not even sure we have a mechanism to delete stuff

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

Hello and thanks for the RFC. I think the Eligible Voters Section is too complex to be addressed/bundled in this RFC. I think it deserves another RFC. Most discussions here are rightfully about this section. To add my opinion: * I don't understand the special treatment for PHP-FIG. This

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

Hi! > What's the threshold of absurdity here? That we could debate. However, it > is > not 0. (I'd personally put it in the 10-20 range, bearing in mind that not > all of them would vote all the time anyway, just like core developers, but > others may feel differently.) I am not sure

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] JIT

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > On 2/3/19 9:00 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > >> > >>> On 3 Feb 2019, at 16:43, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > >>> > >>> Zeev Suraski in php.internals (Sun, 3 Feb 2019 11:02:56 +): >

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)

Hi! Reading the RFC, here's my thoughts: 1. Do we really need different classification of changes? I think having one single vote procedure would have larger benefit, and RFC that fails 2/3 requirement would be suspect anyway. RFCs can have parts - "whether we do it" and "how exactly we do it" -

Re: [PHP-DEV] phpenmod/phpdismod

Hi! >> P.S. I have never understand the need of such tools... >> did it made sense in previous century, where download have a cost ? Enabling/disabling extensions can be useful for many scenario, both in testing and development - such as testing various branches of code, see proper error

Re: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process

Hi! >> I want to say that even a small and fairly > simple code change, > which I proposed to push through the bureaucracy, was difficult. We're discussing RFCs. Small and fairly simple code change does not need an RFC. So either: a) this change is indeed small and simple, and does not belong