On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 5:09 PM Clint Priest wrote:
>
> On 2/13/2023 4:13 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> > Good day dear Internals!
> >
> > I've been following this thread/RFC from its inception to the current
> > moment. I have watched the situation deteriorate and at this point, I
> have
> >
On 2/13/2023 4:13 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
Good day dear Internals!
I've been following this thread/RFC from its inception to the current
moment. I have watched the situation deteriorate and at this point, I have
major concerns about the events that transpired, the motivations of some
On 2023/02/13 11:05, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> The RFC proposes merging into the "master" branch.
> And I voted exactly against this.
If not "master", what branch would you prefer?
That's a dumb question, of course, because "master" is where all
future versions branch off, don't they?
Saying "no"
Good day dear Internals!
I've been following this thread/RFC from its inception to the current
moment. I have watched the situation deteriorate and at this point, I have
major concerns about the events that transpired, the motivations of some
decisions and the apparent major lack of
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 12:51 PM Max Kellermann wrote:
> On 2023/02/13 10:28, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> > It's OK when commits are reverted.
> > You are working in a common repository, and if your commits become
> stoppers
> > for others they have to be reverted.
> > Some of my commits were
On 2023/02/13 10:28, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> It's OK when commits are reverted.
> You are working in a common repository, and if your commits become stoppers
> for others they have to be reverted.
> Some of my commits were reverted as well.
That doesn't explain why you demanded to revert
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:35 AM Max Kellermann wrote:
> On 2023/02/13 01:58, "G. P. B." wrote:
> > We have had completely broken builds for longer days due to some other
> > random changes, and we didn't revert them but fixed them as a follow-up.
> > We still, for over 6 months now, have a
On 2023/02/13 01:58, "G. P. B." wrote:
> We have had completely broken builds for longer days due to some other
> random changes, and we didn't revert them but fixed them as a follow-up.
> We still, for over 6 months now, have a "broken" ASAN build due to phpdbg
> messing up the analyser and
On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 22:09, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <
mweierophin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not directly involved in maintenance, but my take on the scenario was
> that these were rejected and reverted because they caused breakage, whether
> that was in compiling a spare PHP build, or in
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 at 09:31, Max Kellermann wrote:
>
> On 2023/02/11 17:14, Peter Kokot wrote:
> > I've voted in favor of the RFC because of the code-cleaning,
> > tech-debt-reducing improvements to code readability.
>
> Exactly my point, and I'm surprised by the resistance.
>
> Not only
On 2023/02/11 17:14, Peter Kokot wrote:
> I've voted in favor of the RFC because of the code-cleaning,
> tech-debt-reducing improvements to code readability.
Exactly my point, and I'm surprised by the resistance.
Not only surprised, but also disappointed that many have voted against
code
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 13:14, Max Kellermann wrote:
>
> On 2023/01/30 11:26, Max Kellermann wrote:
> > If nobody objects, I'll announce the start of voting on February 1st.
>
> That's today.
>
> Voting starts now, please vote on my RFC:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/include_cleanup
>
> Original
On 2023/02/09 23:09, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> I'm not directly involved in maintenance, but my take on the scenario was
> that these were rejected and reverted because they caused breakage
Your take is not quite correct.
No PR was rejected due to breakage.
There was exactly one
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 1:33 PM Max Kellermann wrote:
> On 2023/02/09 19:04, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> > However based on the discussion of the RFC I believe that voters may have
> > assumed that a "No" means "A cleanup is not allowed", because several
> > participants expressed an active aversion
On 2023/02/09 19:04, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> However based on the discussion of the RFC I believe that voters may have
> assumed that a "No" means "A cleanup is not allowed", because several
> participants expressed an active aversion to a cleanup during the
> discussion. As for myself I've
Hi
On 2/1/23 13:13, Max Kellermann wrote:
On 2023/01/30 11:26, Max Kellermann wrote:
If nobody objects, I'll announce the start of voting on February 1st.
That's today.
Voting starts now, please vote on my RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/include_cleanup
Original discussion:
Hi
On 2/1/23 13:13, Max Kellermann wrote:
On 2023/01/30 11:26, Max Kellermann wrote:
If nobody objects, I'll announce the start of voting on February 1st.
That's today.
Voting starts now, please vote on my RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/include_cleanup
Original discussion:
Hi
On 2/1/23 10:24, Max Kellermann wrote:
On 2023/01/30 11:26, Max Kellermann wrote:
If nobody objects, I'll announce the start of voting on February 1st.
That's today.
Voting starts now, please vote on my RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/include_cleanup
Voting announcements must go into
18 matches
Mail list logo
