Hey, to clarify what the way to go with this RFC is.
This RFC is a FALLBACK. It's about the common part of both other RFCs.
That way it *only* will go to vote after Anthonys RFC ends. And *only* if it
fails.
That means, I will go by the voting RFC and wait until discussion period ends
and put
.
Zeev
-Original Message-
From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 5:51 PM
To: PHP Internals
Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Hey, to clarify what the way to go with this RFC is.
This RFC is a FALLBACK. It's about the common
Zeev,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:00 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:11 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pádraic Brady; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Zeev,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com
I don't think agreeing to any of the three proposals out there is the
best option. I personally think there are viable options out there
that have not yet been heavily discussed.
For instance, everyone and their dog has complained about PHP's overly
promiscuous type juggling. This is one reason
-Original Message-
From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:33 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Nikita Popov; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote
, 2015 5:51 PM
To: PHP Internals
Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Hey, to clarify what the way to go with this RFC is.
This RFC is a FALLBACK. It's about the common part of both other RFCs.
That way it *only* will go to vote after Anthonys RFC ends. And *only*
if it
fails
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Kouřil [mailto:pajou...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 7:52 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
I like your idea, but there's a problem with this (apart from the thing
Zeev,
Thus, I deny your request and strongly urge you to *not* fork my RFC.
That
would be sabotaging of Anthony's and my RFC.
I won't tolerate that.
Anthony welcomed competing RFCs, and in fact proposed it. I don't see how
it would be sabotaging your RFC - when in fact it gives it a
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:22 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Voting for something you don't think is right isn't unity. It's simply
trying
-Original Message-
From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 7:51 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Zeev,
I'm sure we risk to have no STH at all in PHP 7.0 if I put it into vote
now
On 15 March 2015 at 16:55, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Bob,
Thanks for the update. This time, though, although I completely respect
your decision not to put your RFC into a vote unless the Dual STH mode
fails, I'd like to either (with your permission) take over the RFC or
propose my
-Original Message-
From: Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:00 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
On 15 March 2015 at 16:55, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Bob
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:11 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pádraic Brady; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar
Sorry, but ... even though your original RFC was very unclear about this,
everybody went by the all votes must start by the 15th interpretation
that
has been discussed in that thread. Do you think it's an accident that a
whopping six RFC votes started today? It isn't.
Please don't start
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Sorry, but ... even though your original RFC was very unclear about this,
everybody went by the all votes must start by the 15th interpretation
that
has been discussed in that thread. Do you think it's an accident that a
.
Zeev
-Original Message-
From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 5:51 PM
To: PHP Internals
Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Hey, to clarify what the way to go with this RFC is.
This RFC is a FALLBACK. It's about the common part
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:00 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Anthony welcomed competing RFCs, and in fact proposed it. I don't see
Zeev,
There's nothing political about this and I do wish you stop portraying it as
such. Instead of welcoming my proposal to get behind your (IMHO bad)
proposal, you're calling me political. Can you commit to support the Basic
STH proposal if it gains something that's close to majority and
On 15 March 2015 at 19:24, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I don't think you understand the meaning of unity, but I'll let internals
be
the judge of that.
Judging.. judging..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjEmHAeE4DYt=1158
Hi Zeev,
No rule is being broken.
Your re-interpretation seems extremely lax, very timely, and out of
kilter with previous interpretations discussed on this list in getting
all RFCs into vote by today. It was also not the rule I was referring
to, so your statement isn't actually directed at my
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:33 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Nikita Popov; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
I asked whether there was anything in the Voting RFC
(wiki.php.net/rfc/voting) or the Timeline RFC
(wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline), the two RFCs being used to block a Basic
STH poll from going to a vote for PHP 7.0, that somehow make it legitimate
for it to be proposed if the Dual Mode RFC
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Philip Sturgeon pjsturg...@gmail.com wrote:
I am sorry for hurting your feelings but you are being manipulative
and I am not a fan of that. I have no agenda, I just want to see you
put an end to this weird rule bending, definition changing, rule
ignoring
On Mar 16, 2015 6:25 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:22 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Voting
-Original Message-
From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 11:12 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Are there some special rules for a backup
plan anywhere in the Voting RFC
26 matches
Mail list logo
