Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56214 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 41370 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2011 07:17:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 07:17:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 207.97.245.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.97.245.153 smtp153.iad.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [207.97.245.153] ([207.97.245.153:50306] helo=smtp153.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0D/02-21183-F7A7BBE4 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:17:19 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp45.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3D7F5904F5; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:17:17 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp45.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 86193904C7; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:17:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4EBB7A7B.9030303@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:17:15 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <-4079824451837834664@unknownmsgid> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] SplClassLoader RFC Voting phase From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > This attitude only makes me lose a lot of time answering questions > instead of focusing on actual RFC stability. I want to propose > something stable, I do not want to be pressured about should the RFC > exist or not. It only delays the real voting results. What I can do to > address this? I would concentrate on cleaning up RFC and bringing it to some state that is stable and that has some consensus behind it. Right now I see many people are against it. So I would address the concerns raised (provided it's possible), refine all unclear points and then maybe try again. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227