There are some doubts on it, but because:
Zak Greant:
> (...) I don't
> see how it could hurt to try. :)
And the main advantage is:
> I just want a way to more
> easily keep track of what is going on. :)
In fact, it is not so different from discussion on php-dev (it's only an
ad
[Sterling Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > At 10:23 15-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > >[Hi,
> > >
> > >I think one of the problems with this is that even if php-dev comes up
> > >with a system for determining which feature it wants to see in PHP,
At 21:24 15-08-01, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> Oh - I see! So the "Zend" on the License is really just shorthand for
> "Zeev and Andi", has nothing to do with Zend Technologies Ltd. Good
> to know. ;))
In practice, pretty much, yes. I don't remember Doron's, Adi's or Daniel's
last
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 12:15 15-08-01, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> >On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > > At 10:23 15-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > > >[Hi,
> > > >
> > > >I think one of the problems with this is that even if php-dev comes up
> > > >with a s
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Sæther Bakken @gecadsoftware.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Setting up RFC
> Hi Andrei!
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 15 Aug
Hi Andrei!
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > like. That's why the situation wouldn't change radically if/when the
> > engine license changes, much like it wasn't any different *before* the
> > engine license was even introduced, in the P
At 18:13 15-08-01, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > like. That's why the situation wouldn't change radically if/when the
> > engine license changes, much like it wasn't any different *before* the
> > engine license was even introduced, in the PHP 3.0 days. Hav
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> like. That's why the situation wouldn't change radically if/when the
> engine license changes, much like it wasn't any different *before* the
> engine license was even introduced, in the PHP 3.0 days. Having regulators
> over the 'kernel' of the proj
At 12:15 15-08-01, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > At 10:23 15-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> > >[Hi,
> > >
> > >I think one of the problems with this is that even if php-dev comes up
> > >with a system for determining which feature it wants to see in PHP
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 10:23 15-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
> >[Hi,
> >
> >I think one of the problems with this is that even if php-dev comes up
> >with a system for determining which feature it wants to see in PHP, we
> >still depend on Zeev, Andi or someone else @ Z
At 10:23 15-08-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
>[Hi,
>
>I think one of the problems with this is that even if php-dev comes up
>with a system for determining which feature it wants to see in PHP, we
>still depend on Zeev, Andi or someone else @ Zend to implement them.
>An RFC system would be a suppo
["Jeroen van Wolffelaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Hi,
>
> About a month ago there was a discussion on the Engine 2 mailing list, about
> a possible RFC-proces for the more imporant PHP-issues. In the end, there
> was some consensus that it would be good if such a system exists.
>
> I'm simply writ
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, John Donagher wrote:
> With what end in mind is an RFC to be created for? In the IETF, RFC's are
> typically long, complex, and authoritative. They are often referenced for years
> after their inception. Do you honestly think we could (or want to) achieve this
> with PHP feat
Jim wrote:
> Zak Greant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :) I should have chosen the symbols more carefully.
> > They seem to have generated more comments than the original proposal...
> >
> > Does anyone have any comments pertaining to the *concept*? :)
>
> i was trying to drive at the point tha
Zak Greant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :) I should have chosen the symbols more carefully.
> They seem to have generated more comments than the original proposal...
>
> Does anyone have any comments pertaining to the *concept*? :)
i was trying to drive at the point that you've just restated a
sday, August 14, 2001 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Setting up RFC
> Sterling Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Actually, (+-) 0 are really terms and votes, in other projects I've
> >been involved in, there interpreted as "I don't like it, but I wo
Sterling Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, (+-) 0 are really terms and votes, in other projects I've
>been involved in, there interpreted as "I don't like it, but I won't
>stop you" and "I like it, but its not something I think is
>absolutely necessary"
right.
http://d
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Zak Greant wrote:
> Joey wrote:
> > > Are you doing a new O'Reilly book, PHP-DEV in a nutshell?
>
> Subtitled: A Rogues Gallery ;)
>
> > > -Sterling
> >
> > I especially enjoy the idea of "positive zero" and "negative
> > zero". :)
>
> I think that +/-0 would
Joey wrote:
> > Are you doing a new O'Reilly book, PHP-DEV in a nutshell?
Subtitled: A Rogues Gallery ;)
> > -Sterling
>
> I especially enjoy the idea of "positive zero" and "negative
> zero". :)
I think that +/-0 would accurately portray the sometimes
odd nature of support
> > +1: Strongly Support
> > +0: Support
> > 0: Neutral
> > -0: Oppose
> > -1: Strongly Oppose
>
> Are you doing a new O'Reilly book, PHP-DEV in a nutshell?
>
> -Sterling
I especially enjoy the idea of "positive zero" and "negative
zero". :)
--
PHP Develo
> Proposal: Foo*
> --
> ...
> Rasmus +0This should help fix issue x and bug y.
> Richard -
> Sascha +0This proposal supports RFC 10921 in a good way.
> Sterling -0RFC 10921 is kind of strange.
> Torben -1There is already
Jeroen wrote:
> They should _not_ be too technical, _not_ too long, but yet as simple as
> possible, but exactly as precise enough to be relatively unambigious if
you
> know about the PHP conventions. For example like that zend engine 2 white
> paper.
>
> But they need to be updated, and not disca
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, John Donagher wrote the following to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> With what end in mind is an RFC to be created for? In the IETF, RFC's are
> typically long, complex, and authoritative. They are often referenced for years
> after their inception. Do you honestly think we could (or wan
> With what end in mind is an RFC to be created for? In the IETF, RFC's are
> typically long, complex, and authoritative. They are often referenced for
years
> after their inception.
> Do you honestly think we could (or want to) achieve this
> with PHP feature RFC's? Or will they be used only befo
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, James Moore wrote:
>
> RFC.. Request For Comments, its as simple as that someone posts a document
> outlining what they want changed/want to do, calls it an RFC and is
> litterally making a request for comments on their idea. I think this is a
> good idea for large things bu
> > The work on Zend Engine 2 has now started, _without_ a proper definition
> of
> > it. IMHO, that's not the ideal situation, since this could lead to
strange
> > inconsequences, because the precise behaviour is decided during
> > implementation.
>
> Umm what about the white paper that was prepa
> The work on Zend Engine 2 has now started, _without_ a proper definition
of
> it. IMHO, that's not the ideal situation, since this could lead to strange
> inconsequences, because the precise behaviour is decided during
> implementation.
Umm what about the white paper that was prepaired before
;Jeroen van Wolffelaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "PHP Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Joey Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Zak Greant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Setting up RFC
&g
> > On the other hand, the latter one could be named 'RFC process', since it
> > hasn't yet been defined what the heck it is precisely...
>
> RFC.. Request For Comments, its as simple as that someone posts a document
> outlining what they want changed/want to do, calls it an RFC and is
> litterall
> On the other hand, the latter one could be named 'RFC process', since it
> hasn't yet been defined what the heck it is precisely...
RFC.. Request For Comments, its as simple as that someone posts a document
outlining what they want changed/want to do, calls it an RFC and is
litterally making a
> Just poit them to php-dev and keep bringing it up until there is some
decent
> comment on it, at the moment there is no democratic process in PHP, people
> just do what they want and someone normally knows some part of PHP better
> than anyother, IE if you have a sessions thing speak to sascha (
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 12:18:06AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> About a month ago there was a discussion on the Engine 2 mailing list, about
> a possible RFC-proces for the more imporant PHP-issues. In the end, there
> was some consensus that it would be good if such a system exists.
I
> > Ive written one or two before, mainly for the release process (I think
its
> > in CVS under README.realease_process or somthing like that). Id suggest
> > people just get on and write them and post them to php-dev where people
> > generally read them and make comments. I dont see what there is
33 matches
Mail list logo
