hi Dan, you can look into the difference for each particular extension using git. e.g.
git diff master..phpng -- ext/bcmath Thanks. Dmitry. On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> wrote: > Hi Zeev, > > >I have no problem with changing this > >habit, but I do have an issue with changing it retroactively for a > >particular vote. > > Agreed, changing rules retroactively is bad. Considering improving > practices for the future is good. > > >To your specific feedback, there's a migration document to extensions > linked > >from the RFC, and shared here on internals about 10 days ago: > > Thanks for that document. > > It would also be really useful if you could add a link to two commits > of a non-trivial extension that has been migrated, with one commit > before, and one commit after the migration. That would allow people > like myself who only rarely dip into PHP internals to see the > differences actually applied to code. > > > cheers > Dan > > > On 6 August 2014 14:11, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > Dan, > > > > Votes area almost never pre-announced. I have no problem with changing > this > > habit, but I do have an issue with changing it retroactively for a > > particular vote. > > > > Regarding your points, there's a mandatory discussion period during which > > you should have brought these comments, instead of now. As a matter of > > fact, discussion about PHPNG died out more than a week ago, to the level > > that Dmitry even suggested we avoid wasting time and vote sooner (but > that > > goes against the rules so we didn't do that). > > > > If you think the RFC is incomplete in its details and that you can't vote > > over it then you can of course withhold your vote or vote no. > > > > To your specific feedback, there's a migration document to extensions > linked > > from the RFC, and shared here on internals about 10 days ago: > > https://wiki.php.net/phpng-upgrading > > I added another link to it from the 'RFC impact' section, as perhaps > that's > > what prevented you from seeing it. > > > > I believe it's impractical to keep shared codebases for extensions > between > > PHP 5.x and PHPNG. Dmitry - please correct me if I'm wrong... > > > > Zeev > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Dan Ackroyd [mailto:dan...@basereality.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 4:01 PM > >> To: Zeev Suraski > >> Cc: PHP internals > >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Move the phpng branch to master > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> It would be good if people announced that they were going to open things > >> to > >> vote with a warning, rather than just throwing the voting open. > >> > >> The RFC is nowhere complete in it's details for people to make rational > >> decisions. e.g. the section on 'RFC impact' has this for the impact on > >> extensions. > >> > >> "Existing extensions will have to be updated to reflect the new data > >> structures > >> and updated APIs. Much of this work is already done for most of the > >> extensions bundled with PHP, but there are still extensions that need to > >> be > >> ported, and most of the extensions in PECL will have to be ported." > >> > >> That doesn't provide anything close to actual information about what > needs > >> to > >> be done to port the extensions. There is no information about how > >> extensions > >> can support current PHP and PHPNG at the same time....which they will > need > >> to do for the next couple of years at least. > >> > >> > >> cheers > >> Dan > >> > >> > >> On 6 August 2014 13:36, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > >> > I opened the voting on the phpng RFC: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng#vote > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Voting ends on Thursday, August 14th. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Please vote! > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Zeev > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
