On 7 במרץ 2013, at 23:00, David Soria Parra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2013-03-07, Rasmus Lerdorf <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2013 09:01 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>>> So my proposal is to slow down for a minute and not call this RFC
>>> accepted or not until we can come to some consensus as to if it
>>> classifies as a language change or not... Better to clarify for the
>>> health of the project than to plow through and risk causing further
>>> strife...
>>
>> And how do you propose we do that? Vote on it? Will that vote need 2/3
>> as well? I think most of us accepted that language-level changes meant
>> syntax changes. Things that add new features to the language itself.
>
> I think the only thing requiring a 2/3 vote would be the decision on
> wheather to enable it by default or not. As long as it's in ext/
> and not enabled a 50% should be sufficient.
Not that I worry, but how do we reach that conclusion?
Rasmus had a good point. We didn't even vote about interned strings
(and that's a good thing), and I'm doubtful that if we did find it
necessary to vote for it, we'd find that more than 51% is needed. How
is enabling O+ different? Or do we need a vote, and even a 2/3 vote,
for every significant perf improvement?
Again, I don't really worry - given that 94% of voters voted in favor
of embracing O+ (and honestly I'd love to get wider user feedback from
5.5 evaluators before we take this call) - but I'm worried that 2/3
voting requirement will become arbitrary, and not what it was designed
to serve - a way from protecting the language from a flood of
irreversible changes.
Zeev