On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
> one week - two weeks - months - years. > I'll wait. > I know what I'm doing. I'll make it. > > Dmitry. > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 24, 2014 10:13 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > > > agree, > > > > > > I just don't see any blockers, except for Pierre. > > > > Come on Dmitry, I am not the only who has asked that. > > > Just to throw in my usual two-cents, it seems to me that this RFC is very premature. It's the same sort of over-eagerness I saw in the front-page news post a few weeks back. I understand what you guys are trying to accomplish and I applaud you for it, but as far as I can see, it's still quite a ways away from being ready for prime time. And yet, you seem to be acting like it's already there. Aside from the code needing to be ready/tested, you also need to have a more matured collaboration with community folks outside your project like Pierre, which at the moment appears to be downright hostile. Even if the code looked great and everything else was in place, I would never vote to switch over to such a drastic new schema when there's this much animosity and controversy surrounding it. I keep reading complaints about questions being ignored and conflicting stories about secrecy and process. I also think there's some merit to the concern raised about the ambiguity being a prelude to patches being rejected over trivial concerns. I think you guys need to slow down and mend a few fences if you want to make this happen. As much as I like the goals of this project, I'm forced to vote -1 for now, as well. I just think you're jumping the gun when there are too many unanswered questions/concerns still out there. --Kris
