On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > The removed paragraphs were actually the RFC’s ‘case for PHP 7’. As the > champion for the PHP 7 case, I was 100.0% entitled to remove it as I > thought it wasn’t doing a good job at presenting that case, and replace it > with some real pro-7 content. >
The original RFC had only one section where the advantages and disadvantages of PHP 6 vs PHP 7 were outlined in a back-and-forth discussion. Arguments for PHP 6 and PHP 7 were mixed. When you created the separate section for PHP 7, you removed some of those mixed paragraphs and added the pro-7 arguments to the new section. The pro-6 arguments however were simply dropped. That is what I was referring to in my mail. An example of text that was simply removed from the RFC: > Another point that has been made is that due to online reviews, it would quickly become clear that these old "PHP 6" books do not cover the new PHP 6; people would likely try them, find the code in the book did not work, and rate the book "1 star", deterring other customers. Furthermore, the PHP community would likely try to dissuade people from buying these old "PHP 6" books. Some also question how many of the old "PHP 6" books are still in print, for that matter. To me this sounds quite clearly like an argument being made in favor of PHP 6 and it was dropped during your revisions. I'm not saying that you did this on purpose, quite likely you just dropped some PHP 7 related paragraphs without looking at them too closely, but the result is the same: An RFC that is very biased towards one side. I am also not denying that the RFC before your changes was biased to the other side. I think we all agree that this vote was somewhat rushed ;) Nikita
