>
>
>
> I asked whether there was anything in the Voting RFC
> (wiki.php.net/rfc/voting) or the Timeline RFC
> (wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline), the two RFCs being used to block a Basic
> STH poll from going to a vote for PHP 7.0, that somehow make it legitimate
> for it to be proposed if the Dual M
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 11:12 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>
> > Are there some special rules for a backup
>
On Mar 16, 2015 6:25 AM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:22 PM
> > To: Zeev Suraski
> > Cc: PHP Internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Philip Sturgeon wrote:
>
> I am sorry for hurting your feelings but you are being manipulative
> and I am not a fan of that. I have no agenda, I just want to see you
> put an end to this weird rule bending, definition changing, rule
> ignoring "convenient" interpr
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:33 PM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: Nikita Popov; PHP Internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:33 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Nikita Popov; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:23
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> Sorry, but ... even though your original RFC was very unclear about this,
>> everybody went by the "all votes must start by the 15th" interpretation
>> that
>> has been discussed in that thread. Do you think it's an accident that a
>> whoppin
> Sorry, but ... even though your original RFC was very unclear about this,
> everybody went by the "all votes must start by the 15th" interpretation
> that
> has been discussed in that thread. Do you think it's an accident that a
> whopping six RFC votes started today? It isn't.
>
>
> Please don't
I don't think agreeing to any of the three proposals out there is the
best option. I personally think there are viable options out there
that have not yet been heavily discussed.
For instance, everyone and their dog has complained about PHP's overly
promiscuous type juggling. This is one reason sc
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:11 PM
> > To: Zeev Suraski
> > Cc: Pádraic Brady; PHP Internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-
Hi Zeev,
> No rule is being broken.
Your re-interpretation seems extremely lax, very timely, and out of
kilter with previous interpretations discussed on this list in getting
all RFCs into vote by today. It was also not the rule I was referring
to, so your statement isn't actually directed at my e
On 15 March 2015 at 19:24, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> I don't think you understand the meaning of unity, but I'll let internals
> be
> the judge of that.
Judging.. judging..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjEmHAeE4DY&t=1158
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:22 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>
> Voting for something you don't think is r
Zeev,
> There's nothing political about this and I do wish you stop portraying it as
> such. Instead of welcoming my proposal to get behind your (IMHO bad)
> proposal, you're calling me political. Can you commit to support the Basic
> STH proposal if it gains something that's close to majority a
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:11 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Pádraic Brady; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>
> Zeev,
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 a
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:00 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>
> > Anthony welcomed competing RFCs,
Zeev,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:00 PM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-
> -Original Message-
> From: Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:00 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>
> On 15 March 2015 at 16:55, Zeev
On 15 March 2015 at 16:55, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Thanks for the update. This time, though, although I completely respect
> your decision not to put your RFC into a vote unless the Dual STH mode
> fails, I'd like to either (with your permission) take over the RFC or
> propose my own copy
Zeev,
>> Thus, I deny your request and strongly urge you to *not* fork my RFC.
> That
>> would be sabotaging of Anthony's and my RFC.
>> I won't tolerate that.
>
> Anthony welcomed competing RFCs, and in fact proposed it. I don't see how
> it would be sabotaging your RFC - when in fact it gives i
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 7:51 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>
>
> Zeev,
>
> I'm sure we risk to have no
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Kouřil [mailto:pajou...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 7:52 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>
> I like your idea, but there's a prob
about votes, but chances), and as a bonus, you get to prove your
> point.
> If you're wrong - and Basic STH is more popular than Dual STH (at this
> point in time) - we would have given the community at large something
> that's closer to what it really wants.
>
> Zeev
>
lking about votes, but chances), and as a bonus, you get to prove your
> point.
> If you're wrong - and Basic STH is more popular than Dual STH (at this
> point in time) - we would have given the community at large something
> that's closer to what it really wants.
>
>
ants.
Zeev
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 5:51 PM
> To: PHP Internals
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>
> Hey, to clarify what the way to go with this RFC is.
>
> This RFC
Hey, to clarify what the way to go with this RFC is.
This RFC is a FALLBACK. It's about the common part of both other RFCs.
That way it *only* will go to vote after Anthonys RFC ends. And *only* if it
fails.
That means, I will go by the voting RFC and wait until discussion period ends
and put i
26 matches
Mail list logo
