Re: RFC: Move phpng to master

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does >> not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positive >> ‘side effect’ of their apps running faster. So while we believe that >> technically a 50%+1 vote should suffice, we hope to get well over 2/3. >> >> If you're not going to delay this, then you should at very least clarify >> the wording in this section. You believe 50%+1 should suffice but hope to >> get well over 2/3. So is the *required* majority 50%+1 or 2/3? >> > > The text I put there is exactly what I think about the subject of required > majority. 50%+1 is enough for a change that does not effect end users in > any meaningful way, but I'll be happier if it received a 2/3 majority to > leave any doubts away. It affects users, it is a total rewamp of the engine, it requires 2/3. I fail to understand to see yet another attempt to discard simple RFC rules. > I should also point out that, according to the Voting RFC, whether or not >> an RFC "actually affects end users in any meaningful way" is NOT a factor >> in determining whether a 2/3 supermajority is required or not. Here's what >> it actually states: >> >> > For these reasons, a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax >> for example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the >> votes. Other RFCs require 50% + 1 votes to get 'accepted'. >> >> Since the phpng RFC already acknowledges that it affects the language >> itself, this is clearly a 2/3 requirement situation. Whether it affects >> end-users or not is irrelevant. Under current rules, your RFC must have >> 2/3 support in order to pass. >> > > As the person who wrote that text in the Voting RFC, I can tell you with > absolute certainty that you are 100% wrong in your interpretation, as I've > said numerous times in the past. > A feature that affects the *language* itself is not a feature that affects > the *language implementation*. It affects both, there is no point to argue. > I updated the section to be fully technical and removed my wish of heart to > get a 2/3 majority. Although I'd still very much like to get > 2/3, it's > not required. It is. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org