On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> >> wrote: >> >> > This is the opportunity to do the cleanup now, based on phpng branch. >> > Since >> > the branch is pulic on Github, how is development secret? >> >> Benjamin, please check the background before replying. 80% of phpng >> development has been done secretly, before it was even announced. This >> development happened while we were discussing, collaborating, working >> on what will be php-next, including the long due 64bit patch. These >> actions and discussion have done without any feedback from any of the >> phpng developers. I can't blame them for not talking about phpng, but >> to have signed a NDA to do work on PHP itself. > > > I know the background and the int64 clash was unfortunate, however it was > resolved from what I see in a good compromise.
There was no compromise but forcing a move on something that does not exist yet. We made the step to propose a merge with phpng if phpng is ever accepted. No step done from the phpng team, in contrary. So much about coop and trust of said promises. > I don't see how starting to work on some feature/refactoring requires > immediate communication with all of the team, since you need to prove it > works first, obviously you have the prototype then, which is always kind of > secret, because you are the only one who worked on it. There is a huge difference between working on a specific feature and do a total rewamp of the core, breaking APIs even more, for months, ignoring discussions about the exact same topic, let other waste *months* of work by doing so. Even have the mood to say that there is no plan to replace master with phpng and then come up with such proposal. I am sorry, but I totally fail to understand that we could even consider this behavior as good or normal. > Everybody can put their own time where they want in Open-Source, and since > After the initial prototype there was the announcment, no ninja merge or > similar, discussion is still possible. But this requires constructive review > of the patches and pull requests, like its done in any project I worked on > (Symfony, Doctrine, ..). Instead this discussion has already gone south > again discussing about politics instead of the actual code. What you see as politics, I see it as the core issues in why the PHP project does not work as team. >> > With Zend, Nikita >> > and laurence putting so much time into this, I fail to see how it would >> > work >> > to notify everyone of all the changes they are doing. As with every big >> > project you have to put time into following its progress. I agree though >> > that Zend (Zeev, Dimitry) could improve the RFC with a little more >> > details, >> > its focussing a lot on performance. >> >> A little? There is no details, there is no doc, there is nothing but a >> huge set of patches. >> >> > As i understood Nikita and laurence they are already improving it based >> > on >> > the first prototype from month ago. Honestly, if Nikita says converting >> > his >> > extensions improved the API a lot then this is a good sign for me >> > already. >> >> It does not improve anything from an extension developer point of >> view, or very little. On the other APIs are more dangerous, confusing >> and inconsistent. > > > So there is your opinion aginst Nikita's. He has already ported his > extensions and gave a positive opinion. Well, seriously, are you surprised that one of the phpng developer likes what phpng changes? I am not. And phpng solves none of the current APIs issue and code awful state. I am not alone to say it and I am not alone to see it. > PHP 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 had fantastic feature additions and they are only minor > releases. > > I am a strong supporter of those features, however they have been voted out > several times, so I have accepted that they will probably be never in the > Core. I don't mind, they are just syntactic glue, PHP works for me anyways. > > What I would hate to see is that PHP 6/7 blocks itself by wanting to be too > much, failing again or delaying years like PHP 5.3. I agree with Zeev that > if phpng is going to be master, then this should be released sometime next > year. No way. It is impossible and there is so much chances to fuck it up by rushing it this way. And as usual, we will have to take of this mess for the next decade. This is not something I can live with. > Btw, it is your credit that we have the RFC process now, so i fail to see > how this would mean we have another 10 years of PHP 6/7 deadlock, the > release schedule increased massively since then and I expect this to > continue, even more so with the HHVM competition. That being said, between one year and six years there is a medium way. And this is the way I strongly recommend. What you do not seem to see or understand is that engine/core refactoring can't and won't happen post 6/7.0.0, for obvious reasons like API BC or similar things. Other features will require engine changes as well, and I can already see Zend blocking them with the same arguments they used in the past. Too big for a minor version, affect too many areas, we loose 0.01% perf here and there, etc. I am not willing to let that happen again, I am not willing to get 6/7 as we got 5. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
