Pierre, wait a day, and if we won't have many developers, who against the new names - commit it as is.
Thanks. Dmitry. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2014 7:58 PM, "Andrea Faulds" <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > > > On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:56, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The original patch used the right naming based on the type used behind > it. > > > > So IS_LONGLONG, then? > > The original patch, the one from last year. We have made compromises to > fulfill other devs requests, three times. > > Now to be honest I would merge it right away. I do not see why we need to > discuss that again. When I see how phpng got accepted without a word, time > to stop arguing about such things. Merge and move back to code. If one > thinks that one thing or another should be changed, in this patch or phpng, > he will need to write a rfc (and not in 6 months :). > > > > In any case, the patch represents what the rfc and the discussions > around > > > it say. I rather merge it asal and begin on the (long) list of todos > for 7. > > > > > > If you like to propose new naming with the bigint rfc, please go ahead. > > > Time is also an issue as ppl are beginning to migrate their extensions > to > > > test. Changing them again takes time. > > > > Forgive me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t changing the name again just be a > simple matter of global find/replace? > > No, totally not :) > > Even less as bigint support should be added too. And if bigint support > will be optional, the code will need more changes. >
