While we are on the topic of RFCs and voting, I'd like to see the option
to directly download the votes to a CSV file with real names and each
user's karma list.
If the above feature is deemed a good idea, there's also a corollary
feature: It would also be useful to be able to download all vo
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:55 PM Claude Pache wrote:
>
>
> > Le 6 août 2019 à 20:46, Nikita Popov a écrit :
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B.
> wrote:
> >
> >> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> >> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 20
> Le 6 août 2019 à 20:46, Nikita Popov a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
>> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
>> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
>>
>> A counter argument to this RFC is available at
>>
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:34 AM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> # Proposal - improve visibility of negative feedback
>
> When someone creates an RFC, near the top of that page they should
> create a link to a separate page that will contain negative feedback.
> People other that the RFC author are free to
> On 6 Aug 2019, at 21:46, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>>
>> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
>> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
>>
>> A counter argument to this RFC is available at
>>
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B. wrote:
> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
>
> A counter argument to this RFC is available at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counterargument/deprecate_php_short_tags
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:25, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:19 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, doe
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:19 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean
>> the
>> > original RFC that passed is still in effect
Hello,
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:19, G. P. B. wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean
> > the
> > > original RFC that passed is still in ef
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean
> the
> > original RFC that passed is still in effect?
> >
>
>
> Yes, this is really ambiguous, and risks the situatio
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
> I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean the
> original RFC that passed is still in effect?
>
Yes, this is really ambiguous, and risks the situation being even more
confusing than it was before.
The "No" column on
I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean the
original RFC that passed is still in effect?
If I did have a vote, I would be against this RFC for the reasons laid out
by Zeev in the counter argument. However, I feel the negative impacts of
possible code leaks that will
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 14:46, Lynn wrote:
> The current setup allows for a single author to write down counter
> arguments. As the counter arguments seem to primarily be opinionated, I'm
> interested to see who's opinion it is, as two people can have different
> opinions on the same subject. If pe
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:19 PM Rowan Collins
wrote:
>
> Firstly, I would somewhat question why you need to know who holds an
> opinion. RFCs, and any dissenting opinions, are not manifestoes in
> elections, they are information presented so that you can form your own
> opinion. They should not be
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 13:54, Lynn wrote:
> Taking the current RFC (
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counterargument/deprecate_php_short_tags) as
> example, how do we as reader differentiate between people's counter
> arguments? When I read those points, I feel like this is something agreed
> upon by t
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:33 PM Rowan Collins
wrote:
> The key difference between an RFC and a discussion thread is that it
> presents a summary or synthesis, which can be much more easily digested
> than a full discussion. It is also, crucially, editable, so can be reworded
> or corrected to clar
On 5 August 2019 14:33:53 BST, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>When someone creates an RFC, near the top of that page they should
>create a link to a separate page that will contain negative feedback.
>People other that the RFC author are free to put whatever negative
>feedback think is appropriate on that 'n
Hello, how about add json_errors like html_errors and option for injecting
json_errors in response(if response json object(ex. {"success":false}) append
new field(ex. php_error {"success":false,"php_errors":{"stack":...}}))?Thanks.
The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
A counter argument to this RFC is available at
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counterargument/deprecate_php_short_tags
Best regards
George P. Banyard
[1] https://wiki.php.ne
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 23:51, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:05 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd prefer Dan's approach and having a seperate page linked at the top of
> > the RFC.
> >
> > I'll start voting tomorrow and will link to your page in the same message
> > as the voting
20 matches
Mail list logo
