> On 20. Jul 2025, at 15:54, Niels Dossche <dossche.ni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 20/07/2025 02:58, Nick wrote: >> >> Hey Niels, >> > > Hey Nick
Hey Nils, >> The whole controversy is about `get`. >> > > That's true. > Note though that the fact that the RFC still includes this does show a > non-consensus from the authors PoV. > Either you fully stand behind your own RFC and wouldn't have split the vote, > or you agreed that the get hook is a bad idea. This is a misinterpretation. > In the latter case, why even include this still in the RFC text, especially > after Larry said he's positive that part won't pass? > This comes across as really wanting something of the RFC to pass, not aiming > for the best "solution". Yes, we really want the `set` part to pass. No, this does not mean that we not aim for the best solution. We listened to feedback and adjusted the voting structure accordingly. Please don’t forget that some people here support the RFC as is. As far as my understanding goes the list discussion is not a pre-vote. The vote will show what the majority, including the silent part, wants. There is, in my opinion, no need to patronise and prevent them from voting for what they want. >> We addressed this by switching to a split vote, because literally all those >> concerns/opinions (allow it; don’t allow it; add `init` instead; cache it; >> don’t cache it) can _for now_ be “addressed” with a “no”-vote on `get`, and >> then follow up with a new `get` RFC later. >> > > It's important to plan for the future and come up with a holistic solution. > I don't want to end up in a situation where in hindsight we shouldn't have > allowed a "set hook" for example and should've just left readonly alone. I honestly cannot come up with a reason for why this would be the case. >> Am I wrong? >> >> >> What is this all about now? >> >> What are we doing now? >> >> >> Do we keep repeating the same arguments, and disallow bringing this to vote >> at all? Even though like literally everyone seems to be on board with “`set` >> is ok”? > > I believe I answered this, but just to make it extra clear: you are allowed > to bring this to a vote, no one can veto you for that. > I don't believe everyone (who replied) is pro "set hook". And definitely not > in other channels. You asked to seek “clear consensus”. I am and was happy to take all opinions into account. So, I think I did that. I, naturally, cannot take any opinions into account I am not aware of because they were expressed in “other channels”. Here, on-list, everyone seems to be on board. And that’s what I can work with. > I'll end with saying that this should not discourage you from interacting > with the ML. I appreciate the consideration! Everything is ok. Not succeeding will not hurt my feelings, and I’ll stick around. > You got a bit "unlucky" with the subjects you chose as both hooks and > readonly are a bit controversial topics to begin with. In retrospective I am very aware of that! 😅 > Kind regards > Niels Cheers, Nick
