Hi!
> I strongly disagree.
>
> Theoretically, if someone wants to send 'adversarial' communications
> to other internals contributors, they should either do it where
> everyone can see those messages, or not send them.
I appreciate that this may be your personal preference, but it's just
that -
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 09:27, Brent wrote:
> Zeev, while I agree with many of your points, you also don't offer a
> concrete solution.
>
To be fair to Zeev, he did in fact try to kick off a discussion about
Workflows and Voting back in January: https://externals.io/message/103917 |
https://wiki
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 1:00 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:52 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> >
> > Speaking of 'disruptive behavior' that the antithesis of promoting 'good
> > will' - this pseudo RFC is a textbook example.
> >
>
> I wrote an analysis of this outlandish proposal t
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 07:00, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> the RFC process, which was never designed to regulate
> the most fundamental communications channel
Systems grow, and sometimes are used for things outside those that
they were initially designed for.
An example of this is PHP, which is used
On 27.09.2019 at 11:25, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
> The method you described looks great.
> Squashing with rebase interactive works fine, with choosing what commits to
> keep and what commits to squash into the kept ones.
> This can be done by merger or author.
>
> Merging a pull request with sq
Hi Christoph,
The method you described looks great.
Squashing with rebase interactive works fine, with choosing what commits to
keep and what commits to squash into the kept ones.
This can be done by merger or author.
Merging a pull request with squashing in github will set the author's
commit to
Hello all
While my conclusions differ from Zeev's on this topic, this document addresses
many valid point as to why this RFC in its current form shouldn't be voted in.
I believe it should be added in the original RFC as a counterargument — I think
internals@ recently agreed that adding counter
