Rasmus,
We already covered that. An opcode cache doesn't affect the language
> itself. There is no new syntax and no BC issues. Much like a performance
> improvement patch that has no effect on the language syntax doesn't need
> 2/3. Whether it is "major" or not, doesn't matter per the established
> voting process. You can't both be a stickler for the details of this
> process and then ignore them when they become inconvenient for you.
>
To be fair, we did cover it, and we didn't come to a consensus. There were
a few people like yourself who believe it's not a language change and hence
requires 2/3... But there are a lot of other people (many who are raising
their hands now) who do believe it's a language level change and hence
requires 2/3. Sure, it doesn't effect syntax. But it can be considered a BC
change, as the internal zend API changes (not in terms of signatures, but
behaviors).
All I'm saying here is that while we did discuss it, no consensus was
achieved. So I don't think it's fair to say "we already covered that".
Anthony
PS: How would we resolve something like this? Would it require a 2/3
meta-vote to determine if something needs a 2/3 vote? Seems like we're
hitting a limit of the RFC here that perhaps should be refactored...
Perhaps make everything require a 2/3 vote, and not have a distinction...