Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111547
To: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones@pmjones.io>,
 Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
Cc: Jakob Givoni <jakob@givoni.dk>, Benjamin Morel
 <benjamin.morel@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGFlbCBWb8WZw63FoWVrIC0gxIxWVVQg?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?FEL?= <vorismi3@fel.cvut.cz>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008100935570.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BN8PR05MB6532D19BEA11F44BAAD3FDD3DE400@BN8PR05MB6532.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAESVnVp5NHKKpMHt_7AAO8P9L2vL8UN4ynD5K4d9f23Jvr+s2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008141902160.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BYAPR05MB65352D21FAA7EA37A9A0C37FDE400@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABdc3Wrd+WECJOXCmYu0Gq5VttVtTkDoO=-9SEP_+-p=qoNB4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7d6c42a4-53cd-5e38-4ffc-02fe490d66a3@gmx.net>
 <DM6PR07MB6618E0D524F8E7EDE57B87C2F9410@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAJvSBVPgXXLL0=fN2e3c=+P_x58kE5jsYVRMpGN5yvmWEcCP6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <d4b885c812522de0b014380fffa3dddee52f9cf3f8c9629bfa0d31fbaf18f362@mahalux.com>
 <CAG9XoMRiQSjUPUodDXVCSGwgAC-BhdXVH-vizDRcjgvLt+KKpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJmjfvVNDRCBOUoaSTPA=Lyhi201ios1uNy_cmBmZ++bGaRvpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEPJdu=65Sc+ixyJm52iwMaO3EzX4M4Xm5XMRAtt107xixBVBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <49E44F43-C140-41BD-8F95-CAF6154503DA@pmjones.io>
Message-ID: <dc59c382-8a83-123e-6264-1fcc5ecbfaf1@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 01:38:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49E44F43-C140-41BD-8F95-CAF6154503DA@pmjones.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley)

On 16.08.20 01:07, Paul M. Jones wrote:
> /me furrows brow
> If I understand correctly, that means the currently-running vote overlap=
s with the discussion period?  If so, that sounds (again) highly irregular=
.
>
> The proper thing to do here is a full reset: restart the 2-week discussi=
on period at the moment the current vote is declared null and void, then s=
tart a new vote (if the RFC is not withdrawn) after thatn 2-week period.
>
> Basically, the sooner the current vote is explicitly declared null and a=
void, the sooner the properly-conducted 2-week discussion period can begin=
.

Restarting the vote in basically 2 days seems a bit crazy to me too -
that would just be as over-hastily as the last time. Again, I don't get
it - Sara suggested the 21st as the earliest date to restart the vote.
Why does everything has to be done so hastily, and how should a proper
discussion happen this way?

Benjamin Eberlei is saying that they are now including the arguments for
enclosing - and then in two days the vote starts? How should a
discussion happen about these points if there is no time for people to
actually think about it and respond? As far as I can tell, that is what
the 14 days of RFC discussion is about, or longer if needed - to discuss
open questions, to include them in the RFC, and make sure a good
decision is made with all pertinent information included.

By the way, the DocBlock argument Benjamin Eberlei is mentioning is not
new - yet annotations in DocBlocks do not need the ending symbol of */ -
that is not what encloses annotations, it is what encloses any possible
comments. In comparison, an attribute always consists of a class name
and then possible parameters, enclosed by parentheses. Peter Bowyer
mentioned that the "ending delimiter" argument has been obfuscated to a
point where the meaning or reason remains unclear, and I agree - this
should be fully explained, discussed and appropriately included in the
RFC. I just looked at the RFC - this remains unclear as of now, and
deserves its own discussion which still has not happened yet.