Re: [VOTE][PSR-6][Errata] DateTiemInterface handling

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:26:22 AM CST Alessandro Lai wrote: > Review period was called correctly by Larry two weeks > prior: > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/php-fig/IXFXHqi5NLo > > Unfortunately, the reviews came later, so it's up to Larry to decide if he > want to stop

Re: [VOTE][PSR-6][Errata] DateTiemInterface handling

Review period was called correctly by Larry two weeks prior: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/php-fig/IXFXHqi5NLo Unfortunately, the reviews came later, so it's up to Larry to decide if he want to stop the vote and address those, or go forward. -- You received this message

Re: [VOTE][PSR-6][Errata] DateTiemInterface handling

-1 from me. There was feedback on that PR that was never addressed, and I tend to agree with the point that was being made. Further, I noticed a few other areas that I feel need more fleshing out. I think this should have had a REVIEW phase before calling for the vote. On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at

Re: [VOTE][PSR-6][Errata] DateTiemInterface handling

+1 --Larry Garfield On Sunday, January 28, 2018 10:38:41 AM CST Larry Garfield wrote: > Welcome, new CC members! Here's your first official duty. :-) > > I hereby call for a vote on merging the following PR: > > https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/915 > > This is an errata update

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

On 09/08/2016 09:31 PM, Daniel Hunsaker wrote: > Hopefully should FIG 3 pass the Core Committee can take up this question > more effectively, but I don't know that there's a reason to bother if > we're not even going to make quorum. TBH, I find this a bit scary. In fact

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

> > > Hopefully should FIG 3 pass the Core Committee can take up this question > > more effectively, but I don't know that there's a reason to bother if > > we're not even going to make quorum. > > TBH, I find this a bit scary. In fact if FIG 3's Core Committee was > already in place, there's

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

On 05/09/2016 17:39, Larry Garfield wrote: Hm. Well, I had been planning to offer an alternate vote on using InvalidArgumentException should the first one fail, as that was the most likely objection. However, if the vote didn't even meet quorum then I don't know if it's even worth doing that.

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

I too was putting it off so I could review more in-depth and didn't realize it already closed. I did mean to vote. I would also be interested in seeing the alternative for another vote. Sincerely, Jason Coward Slim Framework Adam Culp September 5, 2016 at 2:22

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

For some reason I didn't even see this vote until the closing post and Larry's follow-up. Very sorry, I've been busy. Thought I was keeping up better. :-( Regards, Adam Culp On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 11:39:50 AM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote: > > Hm. Well, I had been planning to offer an

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

Please, offer the alternative, let's discuss and vote Symfony will definitely vote +1 for it as we think this is VERY important to "fix" this. Thanks, Fabien On 9/5/16 08:39, Larry Garfield wrote: Hm. Well, I had been planning to offer an alternate vote on using InvalidArgumentException

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

Hm. Well, I had been planning to offer an alternate vote on using InvalidArgumentException should the first one fail, as that was the most likely objection. However, if the vote didn't even meet quorum then I don't know if it's even worth doing that. Hopefully should FIG 3 pass the Core

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

Hi all, Sorry we're announcing this late. It appears the secretaries google calendar glitched and therefore neglected to notify us of the end of the vote. The quorum was set at 13 with a membership of 38. Therefore with only 11 voters (29%) the vote did not pass. Even if quorum had been

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

+1 --Larry Garfield, Drupal (I should probably vote on my on vote, shouldn't I...) On 08/19/2016 01:43 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: I hereby open a vote for the following Errata for PSR-6: https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/787 Basically, it's a vote to merge that PR. The vote will

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

+1 concrete5 On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 5:31 PM Chuck Burgess wrote: > -1 from PEAR > > CRB > *about.me/ashnazg * > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Fabien Potencier < > fabien.potenc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/22/16 00:09, Lukas Kahwe Smith

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

-1 from Jackalope not sure here what to do .. feels a bit like a precedent .. its a clear omission, yet any fix is a BC break (classic bug fix is kinda always a BC break). so if we do a BC break, then rather the exception .. if we don’t want to break BC, we release a new PSR with this fix

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

- 1 from Yii framework. It's very significant backwards compatibility change. On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:44:01 PM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote: > > I hereby open a vote for the following Errata for PSR-6: > > https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/787 > > Basically, it's a vote to

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

-1 from Revive Adserver. I feel that failing with an E_USER_ERROR that can't be caught is an even bigger API change. Almost evil, I would say. On 19/08/2016 20:43, Larry Garfield wrote: I hereby open a vote for the following Errata for PSR-6:

Re: [VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

-1 Symfony Triggering a E_USER_ERROR in Symfony is a no-go. We would be more than happy to implement the InvalidArgumentException alternative though. On 8/19/16 11:43, Larry Garfield wrote: I hereby open a vote for the following Errata for PSR-6: