Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

Den tor. 5. sep. 2019 kl. 13.22 skrev Côme Chilliet : > Because the PHP project should avoid depending on a privately owned > centralized service for its technical discussions, and should not encourage > (some would say force) people to use such platforms. > > PHP is already on github but it’s

Re: [PHP-DEV] Union Class Types (was Union Type (singular) straw man proposal)

Den fre. 6. sep. 2019 kl. 08.33 skrev Mike Schinkel : > > Hi Kalle, > > Thank you so much for your feedback. > > > I am not sure of the list etiquette. Should I respond to all your points > here and possibly generate a lot of emails, or ask that we move the comments > to my Gist? You are

Re: [PHP-DEV] Union Class Types (was Union Type (singular) straw man proposal)

Hi Kalle, Thank you so much for your feedback. I am not sure of the list etiquette. Should I respond to all your points here and possibly generate a lot of emails, or ask that we move the comments to my Gist? -Mike > On Sep 6, 2019, at 1:20 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote: > > Hi > > Den

Re: [PHP-DEV] Union Class Types (was Union Type (singular) straw man proposal)

Hi Den fre. 6. sep. 2019 kl. 07.22 skrev Mike Schinkel : > Thank you very much for your feedback. You illustrated perfectly why I > should not have produced that proposal in haste. > > Your confusion was due to my first draft errors, which thanks to your > feedback I have hopefully had a

[PHP-DEV] Union Class Types (was Union Type (singular) straw man proposal)

Hi Côme, > This example is really confusing me more than anything else. Thank you very much for your feedback. You illustrated perfectly why I should not have produced that proposal in haste. Your confusion was due to my first draft errors, which thanks to your feedback I have hopefully had

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

On 05/09/2019 22:45, Benjamin Morel wrote: . One thing that could be checked, is whether their API allows retrieving the whole discussion history programmatically. If so, one could setup a database to sync all messages to on a regular basis, so that the PHP project could move the discussions

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

I've thought about this many times while reading messages on internals, but from another perspective: the inability to "+1" a message without having to reply. I very often find myself agreeing (or disagreeing) with someone, but refrain myself from posting a one-liner to show my support. Having

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

Hello, On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 12:22, Côme Chilliet wrote: > > Le jeudi 5 septembre 2019, 12:04:55 CEST Brent a écrit : > > > Huge "no" from me on using github for discussing RFCs. > > > > Care to elaborate why? The majority seems to like it. Though I am also > > curious about Nikita's experience

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 13:05, Mark Randall wrote: > Something I am finding hard on Github, and maybe it's just because I > haven't found the option yet, is finding new posts. > Yes, so far, I've been forced to choose between two imperfect options: - follow the discussion using the e-mail

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 14:29, Brent wrote: > > I believe GitHub is the way to go. Several large communities manage their OSS > on it and have proven it works, PHP should simply do the same. At the risk of giving advice, you will find conversations are far more productive if you ask why something

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 14:29, Brent wrote: > I believe GitHub is the way to go. Several large communities manage their > OSS on it and have proven it works, PHP should simply do the same. > I think this is just as simplistic as saying "never". What are these communities using it for, and what

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

Let's name a few examples of large OSS projects managed on GitHub:  - ECMA (https://github.com/tc39)  - Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust)  - React (https://github.com/facebook/react)  - Node (https://github.com/nodejs/node) Also, let's not forget the hunderd of thousands of PHP packages

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

One idea could be to use a self hosted GitLab instance, I'm pretty sure there are multiple ways via OAuth to connect to an independent GitLab instance. This would allow to have PR like thread on PHP's own infrastructure (even though it seems the project is pretty bad at keeping it's

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 12:27, Côme Chilliet wrote: > > PHP have no control over github, and cannot know how it will evolve. > > (they can change the platform tomorrow and internal won’t be able to do > anything about it). > Those are hypothetically problems. But they do not appear to be

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

On 05/09/2019 12:08, Rowan Tommins wrote: but at least views like externals.io and news.php.net can let you navigate the tree. The lack of a full tree-like structure isn't the worst thing in the world. If only because it discourages certain types of individual from wanting to reply to every

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

Le jeudi 5 septembre 2019, 12:50:48 CEST Joe Watkins a écrit : > > Because the PHP project should avoid depending on a privately owned > > centralized service for its technical discussions > > This is obviously your opinion, but you haven't actually told us why this > is the case, and it's not

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 11:22, Côme Chilliet wrote: > Le jeudi 5 septembre 2019, 12:04:55 CEST Brent a écrit : > > > Huge "no" from me on using github for discussing RFCs. > > > > Care to elaborate why? The majority seems to like it. Though I am also > curious about Nikita's experience with it, as

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

> Because the PHP project should avoid depending on a privately owned centralized service for its technical discussions This is obviously your opinion, but you haven't actually told us why this is the case, and it's not at all obvious. > should not encourage (some would say force) people to use

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

Le jeudi 5 septembre 2019, 12:04:55 CEST Brent a écrit : > > Huge "no" from me on using github for discussing RFCs. > > Care to elaborate why? The majority seems to like it. Though I am also > curious about Nikita's experience with it, as he is the one having to process > the feedback. Because

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2

Hi Côme > Huge "no" from me on using github for discussing RFCs. Care to elaborate why? The majority seems to like it. Though I am also curious about Nikita's experience with it, as he is the one having to process the feedback. Kind regards Brent On 5 Sep 2019, 11:40 +0200, Côme Chilliet ,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Union Type (singular) straw man proposal

Why does the class Number in the example has a $number property and use $this->number->value() rather than $this->value() ? What is the difference between its getNumber method and its value method? Is $this->number and $this->number->number pointing the same object or is $this->number->number

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2

Le mercredi 4 septembre 2019, 10:26:09 CEST Nikita Popov a écrit : > As an experiment, I'm submitting this RFC as a GitHub pull request, to > evaluate whether this might be a better medium for RFC proposals in the > future. It would be great if we could keep the discussion to the GitHub > pull

[PHP-DEV] PHP 7.4.0RC1 is available for testing

PHP 7.4.0RC1 has just been released and can be downloaded from: Or use the git tag: php-7.4.0RC1 Windows binaries are available at: Please test it carefully, and report any bugs in the bug system at .