On 17/06/2016 11:37, Björn Larsson wrote:
Den 2016-06-17 kl. 12:15, skrev Rowan Collins:
Do we really trust our future selves so little that we are incapable
of planning more than 6 months ahead?
Well, my interpretation was that postphoning it meant 8.0, which
is not 6 months away. Having it
On 17/06/16 11:15, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Do we really trust our future selves so little that we are incapable of
> planning more than 6 months ahead?
A practical example of the problems of upgrading is perhaps the time it
takes for public services to get updated. Many of my council customers
Den 2016-06-17 kl. 12:15, skrev Rowan Collins:
On 17/06/2016 10:49, Björn Larsson wrote:
Well one reason I could think of is that things that get postphoned,
is not the same thing as meaning it will get done in the future.
Again, I am not proposing we indefinitely postpone anything. I am
On 17/06/2016 10:49, Björn Larsson wrote:
Well one reason I could think of is that things that get postphoned,
is not the same thing as meaning it will get done in the future.
Again, I am not proposing we indefinitely postpone anything. I am
proposing we specifically plan when it is going to
Den 2016-06-17 kl. 11:19, skrev Rowan Collins:
On 17/06/2016 10:08, Björn Larsson wrote:
And pardon me, but saying that we can wait until an PHP 8.0 release
that we have no clue about when it will happen sounds in my eyes
a bit to far off. Going that direction means instead that boiler plate
On 17/06/2016 10:08, Björn Larsson wrote:
And pardon me, but saying that we can wait until an PHP 8.0 release
that we have no clue about when it will happen sounds in my eyes
a bit to far off. Going that direction means instead that boiler plate
code is needed to catch that exact number of
Den 2016-06-13 kl. 15:07, skrev Rowan Collins:
On 06/06/2016 08:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting
began on Jun 6 and will close on June 16.
You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
Hi,
The more I think about
Hi,
On Jun 6, 2016 2:22 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting
> began on Jun 6 and will close on June 16.
>
> You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
>
> I encourage everyone to read the RFC
Le 06/06/2016 09:22, Dmitry Stogov a écrit :
You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
I encourage everyone to read the RFC and cast your vote towards whichever
option you feel is the best for the language and the community.
Hi,
At AFUP, we would be -1 for this RFC
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Rowan Collins
wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 08:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>>
>> This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting
>> began on Jun 6 and will close on June 16.
>>
>> You can find the full RFC at:
Le lun. 6 juin 2016 à 09:23, Dmitry Stogov a écrit :
> Hi,
>
>
> This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting
> began on Jun 6 and will close on June 16.
>
> You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
>
> I encourage everyone to read the RFC
On 06/06/2016 08:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting
began on Jun 6 and will close on June 16.
You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
Hi,
The more I think about this RFC, the less I agree with it being included
On 6/6/2016 12:01 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> I don't have a vote, but if I did I would vote against making this
> change in a minor release.
>
> The release process RFC [1] says that for a release such as 7.1
> "Backward compatibility must be kept". This RFC gives no justification
> for being an
On 06/06/2016 12:07 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> It's a shame it didn't make it for 7.0, but in my opinion, this should now
>> wait for 8.0.
> I agree with that statement, and hence voted "No".
Same reason I voted no.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
Apologies if this ends up as a duplicate. The list server seems to be,
or have been, down, so trying to re-send and see what happens.
On 06/06/2016 14:38, Christoph Becker wrote:
In my opinion it would be good to more explicitly clarify what
constitutes an unacceptable BC break. Bug fixes
Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 08:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>> This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting
>> began on Jun 6 and will close on June 16.
>>
>> You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
>>
>> I encourage everyone to read the RFC and cast
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 08:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> >
> > This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting began on Jun
> > 6 and will close on June 16.
> >
> > You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
> >
> > I encourage
On 06/06/2016 08:22, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting
began on Jun 6 and will close on June 16.
You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
I encourage everyone to read the RFC and cast your vote towards whichever
option
Hi,
This mini RFC has been moved to "Voting" state. Voting
began on Jun 6 and will close on June 16.
You can find the full RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
I encourage everyone to read the RFC and cast your vote towards whichever
option you feel is the best for the language and
19 matches
Mail list logo