On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
> 2015-03-10 16:02 GMT+01:00 Anthony Ferrara :
> >
> > Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
> > It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility
> > of gaming.
>
> That is much more stricter than my tho
On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
> It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility
> of gaming.
While I generally agree, in the case where there is a small detail
that needs to be addres
Hi,
2015-03-10 12:45 GMT-03:00 Dan Ackroyd :
> On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> >
> > Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
> > It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility
> > of gaming.
>
>
> While I generally agree, in t
2015-03-10 13:52 GMT-03:00 Anthony Ferrara :
> Dan,
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Dan Ackroyd
> wrote:
> > On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> >>
> >> Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
> >> It's easier to understand, easier to manage and
Patrick,
My viewpoint is that options in an RFC are dangerous. I would much
rather have a single RFC, with a single vote (yes/no). I think we
should be discouraging the options as much as possible.
The reason is simple: an RFC should be an encapsulated idea, not a
menu of options. The author shou
Dan,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>> Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
>> It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility
>> of gaming.
>
>
> While I generally ag
2015-03-10 16:02 GMT+01:00 Anthony Ferrara :
> Patrick,
>
> My viewpoint is that options in an RFC are dangerous. I would much
> rather have a single RFC, with a single vote (yes/no). I think we
> should be discouraging the options as much as possible.
>
> The reason is simple: an RFC should be an
Hello,
Le ven. 6 mars 2015 à 00:44, Marcio Almada a écrit :
>
> You are right about this. I'll setup a yes/no vote + a vote to decide
> between E_WARNING (for consistency), E_DEPRECATED or E_STRICT. For me this
> is just a detail but maybe it's very important to others, so better to let
> each vo
