On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:27 PM, David Soria Parra <d...@php.net> wrote: > On 2014-10-26, Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Am 26.10.2014 um 17:23 schrieb Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk>: >>> >>> On 26/10/14 15:41, Bob Weinand wrote: >>>> Ask them at PhpStorm. They were pleased to not have to use DBGp for it. >>>> They just initially requested it because they didn’t knew any better >>>> protocol. That’s all. >>> >>> PHPStorm like PHP-FIG have their own agendas which do not play well with >>> other groups of developers. Just because one thinks an idea is good does >>> not mean that everybody else has to adopt it. So what becomes 'main >>> stream' has to have common consensus and the voting rules provide that. >>> >>> When was the vote on this rework taken? >>> >>> -- >>> Lester Caine - G8HFL >>> ----------------------------- >>> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact >>> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk >>> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ >>> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk >>> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk >> >> There wasn’t any vote and there won’t. >> >> /dev/null likes to listen to your complaints why we should have voted on it. > > step back a bit here, stay professional, there is no need for passive > aggressiveness. >> >> But now it’s in, let’s rather try to improve what’s there than screaming for >> a vote - it won’t help anyone and hinder possible work on improving the >> current thing. > > From what I see, the complan is about the initial protocol and not about > how to improve it or not. This whole protocol business needed an RFC, > which I haven't seen. So we should come up with a good way of deciding > which protocol to use and how to implement it. Before this, I would strongly > vote to not incldue the current verison in PHP 7 at all. Also let me point > out that the code belogns to everyone and everyone will have to deal with it > so we better make an informed decision now.
Hello people. When PHP 5.6 has been released, few weeks/months ago, I explicitely stated Ferenc (RMing 5.6 together with me), that *it is not a normal thing to have an external domain for phpdbg* This has never happened before, FWIR Every code that is part of PHP, that is merged into php.net repo , falls under the PHP licence *and* the PHP process of doing things. One chance is that today the subject shows to everybody and not only RM wondering about this. Cool. I'm all +1 to merge phpdbg web site content into official php.net documentation. Guys, from an external POV, phpdbg seems very strange for people. Why the hell does it have its own github repo and its own website ? This is something that has never been seen for *official* php.net content and our users are asking questions / assuming things. Xdebug is *not* a php.net project, and Derick hash always managed to keep this line clear to everybody (since 10 years now). Derick has never asked to merge Xdebug to core, because (please confirm) probably he wants to keep the lead on the project, and make it evolve like *he, as author and maintainer* wants to. This is something that can not happen to a PHP-project code. phpdbg is under php.net ; every decision about phpdbg should then be debatted with all the team, and new ideas, such as a protocol, RFC'ed, whoever are the maintainers of the code. It's like that for every piece of code, of every extension. This is PHP process. If you dont want to adhere the rules, you can keep your ideas yours, in a separate repo, like Derick does for Xdebug. People must understand that as soon as the code is part of the PHP project, it is owned by the PHP project, and not a single/duo person anymore. Julien.Pauli -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
