hi,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Xinchen Hui <larue...@gmail.com> wrote: >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/uniform_variable_syntax >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64_next > > aren't they discussed and voted? what do you mean by we can't even > start in previous comment? The int64 yes, that means and it is/was not possible given the status of phpng in the last weeks, way too many huge changes. >>> >>> Or you suggest we stop the current work to waiting them come their self? >> >> >> I'm saying that we should resolve the current situation where people can't >> work on stuff which would target php-next, because it is still a moving >> target. > > why Nikita could work on it? why me can work on it? Who is asking you to work on that? >> I'm saying that it is pretty unfortunate that we have to decide to between >> reviewing/accepting a huuuuuuuge chunk of changes or rejecting a significant >> performance boost and some api cleanup. > > we shouldn't, at least most people here shouldn't, only the guys who > need to maintain them should. Yes and no. phpng, as a whole, as it was done, as it is done, and as it is proposed forces us to this choice. I have asked very "early" (later on that) about your plans, and it was told it will not be the base for php-next and its aim is not to replace master. I expressed doubts, I see now that I was right. >> I'm saying that we should stop pushing our own agendas, and figure out the >> best possible solution for the current situation, so that we can go forward >> with the development with the normal workflow, where everybody is on the >> same page, controversial changes are done through RFCs and we don't block >> each other from the work. > > you know what? I really don't like "we should; we must", they means nothing.. They mean a lot, really a lot. > I have spent lots of my time to work on PHP/PHPNG, more than 80 hours > per month. Oh very nice. Now what do you think we spend on the int64 patch? While you were saying that it is fine for master but rejecting it later on because of your secret work on phpng? I really do not like that. > I treat it like a regular work, dmitry spends more than me(8 hours per day). > > you ask me to stop to wait somebody who even can not work hours a month here? It is called team work, with full time developers (very few) and other contributors, doing work on php in their free time (the waste majority). We have to respect the latter much more, much much more. > with all my respects: I really upset by people who always told you, > hey man, don't be rush... Nobody tells you not to rush to work on a given feature. However many did, and I'd to tell it again: do not to rush on pushing the next major release. The version we (all) have to maintain for the next decade. And by maintain it is not only about the core, it is about its extensions, be in core extensions and in PECL or other areas. A bad, unclean or broken APIs affect everyone, not only the few maintaining only one part of PHP, and only on one single platform. It will also affects end users projects, the health of a project affects everyone using it. > because I am rushing, I have be rushing for months to make the work done.. Most part of this work has been done in secret, without discussing with anyone but between you guys. While we were talking about our plans for php-next, even began the work, you were "rushing" to get phpng ready for the announce or release. You did not participate to any discussions nor proposed anything, not even mentioning your work on phpng. This is not the PHP I want to work with, it never was. Also rushing does not mean the work get done correctly. It is often the contrary. We can see that with phpng, you guys have worked very hard, but you worked in a bubble and now you come out of this bubble and tell us that it is all you want for next and that we should do it within a year. No, sorry, I can't and won't accept that. > last of all : "all above is my personal comments, has nothing to do > with Zend"... It has a lot to do with Zend given that Zend funds you to work on phpng and disallows you to communicate about it until it is announced (NDA). It is a shame to have NDAs to work on the core. It is a shame to come now and say things like "why should we wait for next if we (zend) are ready?" while having literally blocked everything since the announce of phpng. PHP-next is about a lot of things, way behind performance issues. You care only about that, but I, f.e., do care about performance only for 20% of my priorities. Large PHP users told me the same. The needs, goals etc for php-next have been discussed and listed. Some of these todos have been worked on, publically, with periodic communications about the status, what has been done, etc. Discussing with many contributors, publicly, openly. This is how it should be. Yes, you do not like the "should" usage, but I repeat, it must be like that. If we can work on PHP openly, I fail to understand why Zend totally fail to do it. Now, as I already suggested many times (but with zero reply from Zend's), let step back, get our roadmap setup, todos, goals, agreement and get back to work. But a forcing move to php-next within a year with almost only phpng is a major mistake and will most likely create a major problem within the php community, especially for php.net. We are not in a positiion to do such mistake,. It is time to get our stuff together, to work as a team, this is out last chance, and phpng is not worth it in comparison. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
