That one took me a while. And then I busted out laughing. Well played
Mark.
ᐧ
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:18 PM Mark Randall wrote:
> On 23/07/2019 10:00, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > DOs:
> > - Test test test test
> > - Tell your friends and collegues to test with their apps and projects
> > - Oh
is no direct gain/need to remove this feature.
Eli
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:16 AM, CHU Zhaowei wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >But that being said, I do support the proposal. I understand people
> >opposed to removing features for no reason, but nobody needs this to
> >be an operato
there is a team working on it now.
Eli
solid point
person, who can give others power to handle things. Sounds like we have
some people willing to help out. (Andreas? Sara?) — People just need to
give them access and let things happen.
Eli
x27;s been brought up in the past. And invariably it
all falls back to "Oh, only one person really knew how to maintain that
random mail server and they aren't active anymore, and now no-one really
does, so it just keeps running and no-one wants to take the effort to try
to update/fix/move
fit there. Or even show a decrease. Then
it's going to be rough moving forward.
Eli
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
ince Wez stopped managing the email
servers. They are kinda 'running on their own without anyone knowing
how they are running'.
Eli
On 11/27/16 5:44 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is there somebody around who knows what happens with configuration of
> mailer in
On 6/18/16 12:56 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> We may be better to consider " htmlspecialchars($str)" rather than " would be for PHP 8.
No, that would be highly inadvisable. As it's been pointed out, people
use PHP templating for things besides just HTML. And if you made this
change, then http://el
s decided by a jury / peers
/ etc.
Which, is very similar to what the purpose of having a Mediation/CoC
team within a project would fulfill.
Anyway, just more food for thought / another POV.
Eli
--
| Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
or maybe not, there should be. However, just
considering a RFC 'failed' because a person had reason to back out of
running it themselves, should not be the end result.
Thanks,
Eli
--
| Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 1/12/16 9:53 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I'm at least one of the people who talked with Eli regarding the STH
> vote (the one for my RFC, not Eli's). It was a ~20 message DM exchange
> on Twitter, very respectful (Eli - if you think otherwise, please say
> so),
ds into the flurry of badgering for people to change their
votes, beleaguering comments designed to help people change their vote,
and so on.
Moving to at the very least a 'anonymous votes, and anonymous results,
until after the vote is finished'. Would make it much more like a
bility for people to
be influenced/petitioned/pressed by others to change their vote.
Hence: I think that there has been something that changed, a new data
point, and therefore a discussion may be merited.
Eli
On 1/11/16 9:51 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli <ma
t to win
> someone over and change his/her vote.
Unfortunately that won't stop the above situation. While it would stop
the idea of campaigning someone to change their vote (which is perhaps
another reason to do it). It just means all the above issues would be
taking place post
da brought this
out of the woodwork a bit. And honestly I haven't seen a serious
discussion about 'by default anonymous' since that time. (But perhaps I
missed it)
Eli
--
| Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
have to imply (though it can). That the actual ballots of
that vote, would be necessity be required to be public themselves. And
I can see pros/cons that could be argued either way there.
If ... the information is made public at that point, but the ballots are
kept in private, then tha
ironment for them to do so.
Without such a statement. They would have no way to determine that,
other than reading 10 years worth of internals+reddit+etc.
To that end, it's a great step, and I will +1 vote for it when it comes
up. Thanks for putting it forward Anthony.
Eli
--
|
in an array" ... and "How to see if a string is in another string".
And showing them this simpler cognitive version. But then you start
going deeper on 'advanced stuff' later :) (and yes, in_array becomes
'advanced stuff' at that point.
It's too bad that th
On 3/15/15 11:05 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Eli wrote:
>> Currently, I can speak for myself, I almost always find myself doing a
>> 'backup' step in coding. Because in this situation my process becomes:
>>
>
ect your opinion, so I'd like to
understand more. Is this just truly a case of "Eh, we have a function
already, this isn't necessary"? Or is there some actual harm you see
caused by it?
Thanks Stas!
Eli
--
| Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ave
other theories on that (which do not include any negative consequences
or foul play, but simple cases of human mentality and 'community' vs
'community' discussions)
In service to PHP,
Eli
--
| Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
t states: "
will close the later of March 13, 2015 or the date that voting closes on
a competing RFC."
Zeev's competing RFC closes on March 25th. So Anthony's proposal also
ends on March 25th. There's still 12 days left for voting.
Eli
--
| Eli White
be
discounted.
Is not the way to attempt to 'win' a vote.
Eli
On 3/13/15 2:04 PM, Maciej Sobaczewski wrote:
> Currently Scalar Type Declarations are going to fall. We have 33 No
> votes and I really wonder why there is almost no justification for
> them. I know that it'
ater. And that evolution can be based upon our real world experience
of using this 'base level' of typehinting for a while.
Versus the more complicated versions, of which both Zeev's and Anthony's
are. In each their own way.
Eli
On 3/13/15 1:17 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Agree a
)
So this was all 'as planned' there,
Eli
On 3/11/15 2:37 PM, Benoit Schildnecht wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You are making a very huge mistake, IMHO. By having 2 conflicting RFC,
> you are taking the risk they both fail. And it won't do any good to the
> language.
>
> Wh
ctly what/where/how the functions are declared.
Eli
--
| Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Specifically asked by Hannes to request an account, so that I can help take on
approving/adding conferences to the conference list.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
27 matches
Mail list logo
