Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124914
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Updates needed to various RFCs
To: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>,
 "internals@lists.php.net >> PHP internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <66B854C7.5010904@adviesenzo.nl>
 <068b201a-6fd8-4b54-aa01-a1267a7bd7c3@gmx.de>
 <66B91D4C.7070002@adviesenzo.nl>
 <a7b4a8be-f8da-4e47-8855-c2cd57993167@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <66BAD95E.7050003@adviesenzo.nl>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 05:56:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a7b4a8be-f8da-4e47-8855-c2cd57993167@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------060505000209070700000208"
From: php-internals_nospam@adviesenzo.nl (Juliette Reinders Folmer)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060505000209070700000208
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christoph,

On 12-8-2024 0:18, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 11.08.2024 at 22:21, Juliette Reinders Folmer wrote:
>
>> Thanks Christoph! I was tempted to update the RFCs myself, but thought
>> it was against protocol for anyone but the RFC owner to do so ? hence my
>> email.
> Changing an open RFC without consent of the RFC author(s) is certainly
> against protocol.  However, in my opinion it is perfectly fine to update
> such "meta" information for closed RFCs (i.e. RFCs which have been
> implemented or declined or withdrawn).
Good to know. Thanks for clarifying.

>
>>   If you need links to PRs/commits, I've got them, as I've been looking
>> them up for the initial PHPCompatibility package updates.
> Please feel free to update the necessary information yourself.  Unless
> you tick the "minor changes" checkbox (what you probably shouldn't do
> for such updates, unless when moving RFCs on the overview page to the
> correct sections), a notification is available as public RSS feed, so
> everyone can follow this, and going back to an older version of the RFC
> would be a matter of a couple of clicks.  And frankly, I don't think an
> RFC author would have an issue if somebody else catches up on what they
> just might have forgotten.
I'll keep that in mind for the future (gone through most RFCs now before 
I saw this reply).
Also good to know about not ticking the "minor changes" checkbox.

Thanks, Juliette

--------------060505000209070700000208
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Christoph,<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12-8-2024 0:18, Christoph M. Becker
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:a7b4a8be-f8da-4e47-8855-c2cd57993167@gmx.de"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">On 11.08.2024 at 22:21, Juliette Reinders Folmer wrote:

</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Thanks Christoph! I was tempted to update the RFCs myself, but thought
it was against protocol for anyone but the RFC owner to do so ? hence my
email.
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
Changing an open RFC without consent of the RFC author(s) is certainly
against protocol.  However, in my opinion it is perfectly fine to update
such "meta" information for closed RFCs (i.e. RFCs which have been
implemented or declined or withdrawn).</pre>
    </blockquote>
    Good to know. Thanks for clarifying.<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote cite="mid:a7b4a8be-f8da-4e47-8855-c2cd57993167@gmx.de"
      type="cite"><br>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap=""> If you need links to PRs/commits, I've got them, as I've been looking
them up for the initial PHPCompatibility package updates.
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
Please feel free to update the necessary information yourself.  Unless
you tick the "minor changes" checkbox (what you probably shouldn't do
for such updates, unless when moving RFCs on the overview page to the
correct sections), a notification is available as public RSS feed, so
everyone can follow this, and going back to an older version of the RFC
would be a matter of a couple of clicks.  And frankly, I don't think an
RFC author would have an issue if somebody else catches up on what they
just might have forgotten.</pre>
    </blockquote>
    I'll keep that in mind for the future (gone through most RFCs now
    before I saw this reply).<br>
    Also good to know about not ticking the "minor changes" checkbox.<br>
    <br>
    Thanks, Juliette<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------060505000209070700000208--