Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Libsodium as a core extension in PHP 7.2
| From: | Alex Bowers | Date: | Sat, 04 Feb 2017 01:22:54 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Libsodium as a core extension in PHP 7.2 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-98161@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 4 February 2017 at 00:04, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Scott Arciszewski <scott@paragonie.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Scott and all,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Scott Arciszewski <scott@paragonie.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I've opened the vote for the libsodium RFC.
> > >>
> > >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/libsodium
> > >>
> > >> See https://externals.io/thread/626 for the
> > >> previous discussion
> topics.
> > >>
> > >> The vote closes at 21:00 UTC (4 PM Eastern Time) next Friday.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I voted for "No, sodium_foo" syntax in order to be consistent with
> > > existing procedural APIs.
> > > 2/3 majority wouldn't fit nicely. What it would be if vote result is
> 51%
> > > vs 49%?
> > > More than half is good enough for 2nd vote choice. IMO.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Yasuo Ohgaki
> > > yohgaki@ohgaki.net
> > >
> > >
> > I like \Sodium\foo instead of sodium_foo, but it deviates from the norm..
> > If we're going to break the norm, we should do so on a stronger
> majority
> > than 50%+1.
> >
> > Also, I thought the rules changed so *_everything_* needed 2/3 now?
> >
>
> The usual rule is that "secondary" votes use 50% majority, to avoid bias in
> one direction or the other.
>
> Regards,
> Nikita
>
Would it not be possible for _both_ to be supported? It would be just an
alias