Morning Adam, Once the proposal had been accepted, and merged, it's not really legitimate to unilaterally decide that it's a bad implementation and revert it yourself.
In addition, what we are looking at is a new RFC, that uses some of the same words as the old one, but a different approach and a different implementation. Please start the discussion period from the beginning. Please do not revert patches that were voted in by the community without consensus. Cheers Joe On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Adam Baratz <adam.bar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > No, you're not misreading the subject line. I began working on the docs for > the previously accepted proposal and became uncomfortable with the > approach. I think it will be better to integrate this info into > PDOStatement::debugDumpParams(). It will let me do the testing I want to > do > without introducing a new API, which was the primary concern expressed in > the previous discussion. > > I reverted the code I'd committed, updated the RFC with an example, and > reset the vote: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/debugging_pdo_prepared_statement_emulation > > Since this isn't a strong departure from the original RFC, I don't think > another discussion period is necessary. Please let me know if you disagree. > Otherwise, voting will end on 30 November 2016 at 0:00 UTC. > > Previous discussion occurred in these threads: > http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=147638162506291&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=147734024403899&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=147673258418764&w=2 > > Thanks for your patience as I get acclimated to the world of RFCs. > > Adam >
