On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > Fully agree with Andrea. I don't think there's a point in debating the > majority question to no end, because ultimately, it's open for > interpretation. I feel very, very confident about my interpretation - for > reasons I explained already. I didn't ignore the feedback, I disagreed > with it.
You disagree with questions? I call that self censorship. Very good lead. >> Now, could Zeev make it have a 2/3 majority to be less controversial? > Sure, >> but he doesn't have to. > > I still stand by my original comment - that I hope and believe this RFC > will get well over 2/3 - but that it technically only requires a simple > majority. A total rewamp of the engine, with some part of it being very disputable, some even had draft RFCs but looks like feedback for them are being ignored as well, and some BC as bonus? This requires 2/3. Period. And you will certainly get them, don't worry. And that's quite depressing about what's going on in php.net lately. -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
