On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Michael Wallner <m...@php.net> wrote:
> On 28/01/15 18:58, Levi Morrison wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Levi Morrison <le...@php.net > > <mailto:le...@php.net>> wrote: > > > > Discussion has been very low on this topic since it was proposed > on > > August 19th, so I just opened the vote on the RFC whether to add > > pecl_http to the core. The vote will be open until about 12:00 > > UTC on > > Friday, February 6th. > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#vote > > > > > > I wish you had pinged the list before opening the vote. I know there > > were a few people who wanted to make comments but have just been > > very busy. For example, I have been dealing with the return types > > RFC which has soaked up all of the time I have for working on PHP > > projects. > > > > Some feedback: I feel the RFC is not clear about the advantages and > > disadvantages of including this package. Mostly, the RFC is "hey I > > have this package can we include it in core?" I feel like it's > > fairly incomplete as to *why* we should include it. There is a fair > > amount of work done in user-land for these types of utilities, and I > > think without a more balanced discussion we'd be giving this > > extension a distinct advantage. > > > > If we allow it to remain in voting phase despite these issues, I > > have to vote no simply because I don't feel like there is enough > > information presented in the RFC for anyone except current pecl_http > > users to make a good decision; that's hardly a good situation for > > the language as a whole. > > > > > > Oh, one more item: has anyone had time to review the pieces and how they > > all interact, as well as reviewing the quality of each component? I > > should hardly think in the time given this has been done. I'm not saying > > this extension is bad; I am saying that I don't think there's been time > > for anyone to properly evaluate whether it is or not. > > Well, there's been hardly any activity on the RFC for over five months, > if one didn't have the chance for review in this time frame then the > topic is probably not interesting enough for her. > > But I already guessed, that there wouldn't be a real discussion until I > slapped the label VOTE on this RFC. > I always send an email to the list before putting something to vote to gather more feedback. It usually solicits one or two more points of discussion. This is not technically a requirement, but if it has has no activity for 5 months what are the chances that it is on my mind? (Hint: exactly zero) As an RFC author if you want people to think about your RFC and discuss it then on occasion you need to bring it up now and again.
