Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54033 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51660 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2011 10:06:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Jul 2011 10:06:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=petercowburn@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=petercowburn@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.210.46 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: petercowburn@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.210.46 mail-pz0-f46.google.com Received: from [209.85.210.46] ([209.85.210.46:60399] helo=mail-pz0-f46.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 81/E6-08769-AA5042E4 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 06:06:35 -0400 Received: by pzk3 with SMTP id 3so4086008pzk.33 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:06:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=QSRlI2g2HyaotXtmruLqZo+NQaSZkgJVhje1nQs7Q1I=; b=rkWNxYrU6yrZknena5c51V2nrSyGIXeVgnYs/a3QhAyEWC1bOtrCMrpdfaowwixADK RQGmgamvlVIieo2dlLDVVhlYXfICgob0zym1Yn2gl2fVZmGjwt+/hR+sRFXmIPEJenfE iU7YJq6lwKF1NRN5w4/sHnRtm0YDT/zNYFPqo= Received: by 10.68.12.133 with SMTP id y5mr8328814pbb.104.1310983590249; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:06:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.56.65 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:05:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E22A697.2020900@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:05:48 +0100 Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye Cc: Stas Malyshev , PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote results From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn) On 18 July 2011 10:45, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote: > >> My meaning was simply that trying to explain what was being voted on, >> after the vote has closed, is too late. I'm aware of the previous >> discussions on the topic on this list. > > It has been explained dozen of times before the votes, that's what I'm > trying to say :) And the short description on the voting page (and associated non-voting page and the [VOTE] internals thread) made no mention of any such explanations for voters. That is what I'm trying to say. I may well be the only one who voted no due to not being 100% clear on what the vote entailed. I *assumed* the vote was to set MQ to off and leave the MQ functions as they are (even the set_magic_quotes_runtime() function) but without any link to sources of what "remove" really meant for that particular vote I was not comfortable with saying yes. In summary, link to the RFC(s) and/or internals discussion(s) next time please. > > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org >