Re: RFC: Move phpng to master

From: Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:07:59 +0000
Subject: Re: RFC: Move phpng to master
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to internals+get-76170@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
On 27/07/2014 00:32, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> Is PHPNG a feature? No, it’s not. It’s improvements & performance >> optimizations at the implementation level. Those who have been following >> my involvement on internals@ over the years know my position about both >> feature creep and downwards compatibility, and I’m absolutely certain that >> it was clear to them – most if not all – what the meaning here was. That’s >> 100.0% irrelevant to PHPNG. > > For what it’s worth, I’d completely agree with Zeev here. phpng is really just an > implementation deal, it doesn’t need a 2/3 vote, controversial or no. I agree about the meaning and the fact that phpng is implementation. However if there is some userland BC break, then it should effectively be 2/3, shouldn't it? How about the "Incompatibilities (made on purpose and are not going to be fixed)"? Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/

« previous php.internals (#76170) next »