Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111531 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 72991 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2020 11:11:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2020 11:11:27 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8541804DA for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:11:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-pl1-f177.google.com (mail-pl1-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-f177.google.com with SMTP id g15so1355507plj.6 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:11:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=duYr2N8qKNBhY1fbYp50bygRe2brz5EXvN4RUnCm+dg=; b=glPCfJ9i1pxOHc9Xehxh+ct2tl5zDqnEf03ATpPTa2dFiM3nd/C/98AQbntN678AfG 7ipL80VSjQwqm8jmurQGG2MYCOjS3RwLpdTMV9jzfVw+7/2lPU+IqsjaIP3bvUmibjaO zqy7+i9GmyCIVbRXrcd2ulCPwh/uTHGK+cB9rQzjuWWrs4Ft6D3plhFxSO6TV9e8ezuY Up2RJhL51BYezkAYgtU1qap6aycaIc8W3TrWwkCvVipkVnHQWLdOwDCKTBCdW9Uiqd/8 JE3ZYBuj1pmL3RGzgHOBmVO3Wa/icWCS5SazUMUQTOEG8+zPgasmreoOEeIV/CJUXqPw OlMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=duYr2N8qKNBhY1fbYp50bygRe2brz5EXvN4RUnCm+dg=; b=ULxGzw6dBDCgR6qYaMJH+738bQu3uSsDAXQnW8IGW1cMIMGDCOdVi75nX13W8brmPG vmpB9l9MyxD197pku6iljj/bGFSn5MgbsemtTOc531JwKaNgDmx+//crWVj+qEda5nov JxFMCPR2sCKoYcYLS32OR3gJAn3JdxT2uu4/DMmsLJ2OSmE1Z01yRKqmsNpUaDB2QAgS W4mYb+MvyCzvhCuGYIxUJFkMFNHesgPEl4os23W2EEChDpJtuk1bp5LKFP+Xh8vQQ4VH Z1rUR7TagZXZ0ehsHHN4q8EHos1GdlXZ+PKfOl4f21t9hzHX/sjlXqaDNypy0I9bNcHi ELzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5304vh3kDVSliw0sZBAP3S4NvG38QYjXCBo3PglLbvJFO01MSwzn 6z+wSyvQQXsxmmRFNUinu2q0N1GqTmaVQf1lI1c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy+gGo2pFZ8q/j13Iff1DekjIB18lVFB1nlBuqlAWhhoCPGUJ7QuWsbXdYSLWP1XkbQBMSZnxPU1TZReOy0YYo= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ea83:: with SMTP id h3mr5900419pjz.170.1597486302118; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 03:11:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5cc837df-ab47-628a-d29b-46d7933be973@gmx.net> <3A7CECC3-CDEE-4852-BF4B-4EC7CA1BD538@pmjones.io> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:11:30 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Marcin_Brzuchalski?= Cc: Theodore Brown , Derick Rethans , Sara Golemon , Benjamin Eberlei , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000928da605ace7c3c1" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: t.carnage@gmail.com (Chris Riley) --000000000000928da605ace7c3c1 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000928da505ace7c3c0" --000000000000928da505ace7c3c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 10:54, Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski < michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Theodore, > > pt., 14 sie 2020, 22:16 u=C5=BCytkownik Theodore Brown > napisa=C5=82: > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:23 PM Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Sara Golemon wrote: > > > > > > > > Derick and Benjamin (and Sara), are these requests reasonable? If > > > > > the RFC follows the discussion period rule and contains all the > > > > > relevant information, I will be much more confident that it is > > > > > resulting in the best long term outcome (and I think this would > > > > > speak for many others on list as well). > > > > > > > > Honestly, the current end date is fine, because the intent of the > rule > > > > is met. However, I do like that you're seeking a solution which > helps > > > > to put concerns to rest. > > > > > > > > The only part which irks me is that we have 50-some votes already > cast > > > > that would be thrown out and have to be redone, and that's on what = is > > > > already the 3rd vote on this syntax. > > > > > > > > I'm vote fatigued, personally. However, we're going to have to liv= e > > > > with this syntax forever once it's out, so we should believe that w= e > > > > believe in it. > > > > > > As I've said, I have no problems with *extending* the time by the wee= k > > > and a bit that I missed. I disagree about having to stop, wipe, and > > > revote. As you said, vote fatigue. > > > > Hi Derick and Sara, > > > > I don't think it's reasonable to simply extend the period, when the > > RFC has been significantly updated to include important details that > > were missing when most people cast their vote. Otherwise the vote > > result does not reflect the contents of the RFC, and therefore cannot > > be considered valid. > > > > If vote fatigue is really the most important consideration here, > > would this RFC have been brought to vote in the first place? > > > > I don't think there's anything significant changed in the RFC. I really > doubt the vote result will change significantly. > > Currently you're the only one who wants to wipe the vote and there is no > much voices willing to follow your proposal. > > Personally I think extending the vote by additional week is fair enough. > > Cheers, > Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski > > > > On the BC breaks front, I actually ended up using @[] in some code yesterday and PHP Storm already (incorrectly) flagged it as an error. [image: image.png] So maybe, inadvertently, not as bad as we think it is? ~C --000000000000928da505ace7c3c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 10:54, Micha=C5=82= Marcin Brzuchalski <mic= hal.brzuchalski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Theodore,

pt., 14 sie 2020, 22:16 u=C5=BCytkownik Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com><= br> napisa=C5=82:

> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:23 PM Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Sara Golemon wrote:
> >
> > > > Derick and Benjamin (and Sara), are these requests reas= onable? If
> > > > the RFC follows the discussion period rule and contains= all the
> > > > relevant information, I will be much more confident tha= t it is
> > > > resulting in the best long term outcome (and I think th= is would
> > > > speak for many others on list as well).
> > >
> > > Honestly, the current end date is fine, because the intent o= f the rule
> > > is met.=C2=A0 However, I do like that you're seeking a s= olution which helps
> > > to put concerns to rest.
> > >
> > > The only part which irks me is that we have 50-some votes al= ready cast
> > > that would be thrown out and have to be redone, and that'= ;s on what is
> > > already the 3rd vote on this syntax.
> > >
> > > I'm vote fatigued, personally.=C2=A0 However, we're = going to have to live
> > > with this syntax forever once it's out, so we should bel= ieve that we
> > > believe in it.
> >
> > As I've said, I have no problems with *extending* the time by= the week
> > and a bit that I missed. I disagree about having to stop, wipe, a= nd
> > revote. As you said, vote fatigue.
>
> Hi Derick and Sara,
>
> I don't think it's reasonable to simply extend the period, whe= n the
> RFC has been significantly updated to include important details that > were missing when most people cast their vote. Otherwise the vote
> result does not reflect the contents of the RFC, and therefore cannot<= br> > be considered valid.
>
> If vote fatigue is really the most important consideration here,
> would this RFC have been brought to vote in the first place?
>

I don't think there's anything significant changed in the RFC. I re= ally
doubt the vote result will change significantly.

Currently you're the only one who wants to wipe the vote and there is n= o
much voices willing to follow your proposal.

Personally I think extending the vote by additional week is fair enough.
Cheers,
Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski

>

On the BC breaks front, I actually= ended up using=C2=A0@[] in some code yesterday and PHP Storm already (inco= rrectly) flagged it as an error.=C2=A0
3D"image.png"
So maybe, inadvertently, not as bad as we think it is?

~C
--000000000000928da505ace7c3c0-- --000000000000928da605ace7c3c1--