Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123426
Feedback-ID: ifab94697:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-480-g515a2f54a-fm-20240515.001-g515a2f54
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <68351e45-b889-4418-9ec3-ba8fe3439d46@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANNiG7gx7q3aDKEW6=CgZ5yM4nbwxepGJDjfgCSasjGSNUmEVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1142fd03-a71a-3a6e-2cda-540c2ab5961a@php.net>
 <c4385a67-b86c-461d-9797-6d76b35dff8a@app.fastmail.com>
 <CANNiG7gx7q3aDKEW6=CgZ5yM4nbwxepGJDjfgCSasjGSNUmEVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 10:29:14 +0200
To: Bilge <bilge@scriptfusion.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Subject Prefixes
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=b279569a8d5a459a9650b7ed0603ee6d
From: rob@bottled.codes ("Rob Landers")

--b279569a8d5a459a9650b7ed0603ee6d
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Thu, May 23, 2024, at 17:40, Bilge wrote:
> Unless someone is going to write out definitions for tags, including w=
hen we should(n't) use them, I agree with Derick; they're just useless c=
ruft. I only added them because everyone else was doing it (lol).
>=20
> Bilge
>=20
> On Thu, 23 May 2024, 16:28 Rob Landers, <rob@bottled.codes> wrote:
>> __
>> On Thu, May 23, 2024, at 16:50, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>=20
>>> I've noticed that lately, people are adding a [Discussion] prefix to=
 new=20
>>> threads to this list. That seems rather superfluous, as this is a=20
>>> *discussion* mailing list.
>>>=20
>>> RFCs require us to use [RFC] and [Vote] to stand out, but please let=
 us=20
>>> proliferate additional ones.
>>>=20
>>> The normal subject text should be enough.
>>>=20
>>> This is more useful where display space (like on phones) is small, s=
o=20
>>> the subject is more easily seen.
>>>=20
>>> cheers,
>>> Derick
>>>=20
>>=20
>> I rather like the discussion prefix. It seems to be used when people =
are considering an RFC and feeling things out.=20
>>=20
>> =E2=80=94 Rob

I suspect it is the wording on the RFC how-to where it provides a specif=
ic subject template for each step, but not for the discussion. Thus =E2=80=
=9Cany=E2=80=9D subject is acceptable and it follows that you=E2=80=99d =
probably use a similar subject template to mark a thread as a discussion=
 over a vote.

It might be worth clarifying the subject in 4.3.=20

=E2=80=94 Rob
--b279569a8d5a459a9650b7ed0603ee6d
Content-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type=3D"text/css">p.Mso=
Normal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div><br></div><div>=
<br></div><div>On Thu, May 23, 2024, at 17:40, Bilge wrote:<br></div><bl=
ockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div dir=3D"auto"><div>Unles=
s someone is going to write out definitions for tags, including when we =
should(n't) use them, I agree with Derick; they're just useless cruft. I=
 only added them because everyone else was doing it (lol).<br></div><div=
 dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Bilge<br></div></div><div><br>=
</div><div class=3D"qt-gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"qt-gmail_a=
ttr">On Thu, 23 May 2024, 16:28 Rob Landers, &lt;rob@bottled.codes&gt; w=
rote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"qt-gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top:=
0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-wid=
th:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);padd=
ing-left:1ex;"><div><u></u><br></div><div><div>On Thu, May 23, 2024, at =
16:50, Derick Rethans wrote:<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt=
-m_3401826976085518922qt"><div>Hi!<br></div><div><br></div><div>I've not=
iced that lately, people are adding a [Discussion] prefix to new&nbsp;<b=
r></div><div>threads to this list. That seems rather superfluous, as thi=
s is a&nbsp;<br></div><div>*discussion* mailing list.<br></div><div><br>=
</div><div>RFCs require us to use [RFC] and [Vote] to stand out, but ple=
ase let us&nbsp;<br></div><div>proliferate additional ones.<br></div><di=
v><br></div><div>The normal subject text should be enough.<br></div><div=
><br></div><div>This is more useful where display space (like on phones)=
 is small, so&nbsp;<br></div><div>the subject is more easily seen.<br></=
div><div><br></div><div>cheers,<br></div><div>Derick<br></div><div><br><=
/div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I rather like the discussion prefi=
x. It seems to be used when people are considering an RFC and feeling th=
ings out.&nbsp;<br></div><div><br></div><div id=3D"qt-m_3401826976085518=
922sig121229152">=E2=80=94 Rob<br></div></div></blockquote></div></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>I suspect it is the wording on the RFC how-to =
where it provides a specific subject template for each step, but not for=
 the discussion. Thus =E2=80=9Cany=E2=80=9D subject is acceptable and it=
 follows that you=E2=80=99d probably use a similar subject template to m=
ark a thread as a discussion over a vote.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I=
t might be worth clarifying the subject in 4.3.&nbsp;</div><div><br></di=
v><div id=3D"sig121229152">=E2=80=94 Rob<br></div></body></html>
--b279569a8d5a459a9650b7ed0603ee6d--