Rasmus, We already covered that. An opcode cache doesn't affect the language > itself. There is no new syntax and no BC issues. Much like a performance > improvement patch that has no effect on the language syntax doesn't need > 2/3. Whether it is "major" or not, doesn't matter per the established > voting process. You can't both be a stickler for the details of this > process and then ignore them when they become inconvenient for you. >
To be fair, we did cover it, and we didn't come to a consensus. There were a few people like yourself who believe it's not a language change and hence requires 2/3... But there are a lot of other people (many who are raising their hands now) who do believe it's a language level change and hence requires 2/3. Sure, it doesn't effect syntax. But it can be considered a BC change, as the internal zend API changes (not in terms of signatures, but behaviors). All I'm saying here is that while we did discuss it, no consensus was achieved. So I don't think it's fair to say "we already covered that". Anthony PS: How would we resolve something like this? Would it require a 2/3 meta-vote to determine if something needs a 2/3 vote? Seems like we're hitting a limit of the RFC here that perhaps should be refactored... Perhaps make everything require a 2/3 vote, and not have a distinction...
