I can confirm what Carl just wrote.
There is a whole lot more that can be done, which would help keep the FIG
discussions "in control", if the email listing functionality would be
approved to get dropped. This change would also mean the members would need
to visit the forum to actually partici
+1 on blank line - simply looks cleaner IMHO.
Scott
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP
Framework Interoperability Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
That would certainly be more in scope yes and I'd no longer have any
objections but I wouldn't be in favour either; I'd say I'd then be neutral
on the change.
--
Michael C
On 2 August 2016 at 14:24, 'Alexander Makarov' via PHP Framework
Interoperability Group wrote:
> So would it be OK if we wo
Looks like this vote is not going to pass, but I feel like I should cast my
vote regardless and +0 feels like an easy way out.
+1 concrete5
To me the issue is that Paul does not acknowledge that his behavior is
detrimental, I have no reason to believe that he is going to make any
attempt to be mo
I think that's the way to go. Change it from "in both code and
documentation blocks i.e." to "in code i.e."
Thanks,
Korvin
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:24 AM 'Alexander Makarov' via PHP Framework
Interoperability Group wrote:
> So would it be OK if we won't touch documentation i.e. remove "in both
Hi All,
Sorry for being a little late to this party, FIG has me a little exhausted
at the moment to say the least. I agree with pretty much all of the
opinions and responses in this thread other than the ones saying we should
wait or that we should use the survey result as gospel. We are still movi
So would it be OK if we won't touch documentation i.e. remove "in both code
and documentation blocks"?
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 1:28:07 PM UTC+3, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> My main issue with this change is that it dictates how it should be used
> in documentation (essentially doc blocks and
> On 02 Aug 2016, at 13:10, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> On 01/08/2016 17:50, GeeH wrote:
>> It was agreed as a group, that voting +1 for the replacement of Paul was
>> inherently pointless, as removing Paul as the voting representative is a
>> moot action resulting in no perceptible
-1 from Jackalope
> On 29 Jul 2016, at 01:56, Samantha QuiƱones wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The discussion period having concluded, I am now opening a vote on the matter
> of the proposal to require the Aura project to name a new voting
> representative.
>
> The discussion thread is available here:
Hi Gary,
On 01/08/2016 17:50, GeeH wrote:
It was agreed as a group, that voting +1 for the replacement of Paul was
inherently pointless, as removing Paul as the voting representative is a
moot action resulting in no perceptible change to the situation. As
Matthew was one of the public complainan
My main issue with this change is that it dictates how it should be used in
documentation (essentially doc blocks and comments), and presently nothing
(I think) in PSR-2 or PSR-12 dictates how comments or docs should be done
as well as code. I'd therefore say this is out of scope.
Furthermore, whi
+0 Magento
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 12:56:52 AM UTC+1, Samantha QuiƱones wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The discussion period having concluded, I am now opening a vote on the
> matter of the proposal to require the Aura project to name a new voting
> representative.
>
> The discussion thread is availa
PSR-5 scope is phpDoc exclusively. It cannot affect types used for
typecasting.
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 6:32:45 PM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On 07/31/2016 02:03 PM, 'Alexander Makarov' via PHP Framework
> Interoperability Group wrote:
>
> For the PSR-12 coding standard I've made a ch
We hear you. We'll collect as much data as we can. Then will build a PSR
based on the data collected but not only the data collected.
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 5:51:19 PM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On 08/01/2016 01:32 AM, Andrew Carter wrote:
> > Some projects still don't use PSR-2 beca
14 matches
Mail list logo