Re: SplClassLoader RFC Voting phase

2011/11/10 Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>: > hi Stas, > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote: >> Hi! >> >>> This attitude only makes me lose a lot of time answering questions >>> instead of focusing on actual RFC stability. I want to propose >>> something stable, I do not want to be pressured about should the RFC >>> exist or not. It only delays the real voting results. What I can do to >>> address this? >> >> I would concentrate on cleaning up RFC and bringing it to some state that is >> stable and that has some consensus behind it. Right now I see many people >> are against it. So I would address the concerns raised (provided it's >> possible), refine all unclear points and then maybe try again. > > The RFC is actually clean and implements PSR-0, it has been discussed > and approved by many PHP frameworks or projects. We are hiding > ourselves in the sand if we don't see that. Arguing about PSR-0 is > fine but that's not the place to do it. And as PSR-0 is already > approved, poeple with issues should bring them in the PSR-0 discussion > channel, for the next version of PSR. You're mixing stuff here. "RFC on PSR-0 support into PHP status" != "PSR-0 status" There is indeed no point discussing PSR-0 here, this is a standard (de facto or not, I don't care). However, *how* PSR-0 might be introduced into PHP, for those who uses it, is for sure not ready yet and certainly not approved! I'm all for having a PSR-0 loader in the core of PHP, but if I voted "No", that is because I think the RFC is not ready yet. > But blocking the only thing so many PHP projects have ever agreed on > is a major mistake. And it is a political and religious choice > (religious as in "php does not enforce standard"). Even for something > that does not enforce anything if not used. Some are blocking because they kinda feel forced if this is introduced. Ignore those, PHP wouldn't have bundled ext/mysql for the same reasons about 15 years ago. I guess that some voted "No" because of lack of consensus. There is a real need to clarify some of the valid concerns that have been addressed regarding the API proposed. > And as far as I can see, the RFC is approved as of now. That is simply not true. Patrick