Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59697
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F84D482.20905@sugarcrm.com>
References: <CAF+90c_hj7PrWbm42dj0DhN7Ygmc=vckP=bcYfsVuod4=RrOQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F84C76A.9090104@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAKOpQSwsU-wq5fn=fKB1NNXKqVKCXGTe-3v74n1Kz2cSunaN7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F84D482.20905@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:27:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSx5uT934-sYF-132pzrzwe1eqHK6j1itOafoLR+9scy0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bd7e85c769004bd5d2600
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow non-variable arguments to empty()
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d043bd7e85c769004bd5d2600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > Err isn't this something that should go through the RFC process first?
> > I think it's a good idea and I'll probably vote for it, but as I
> > understand the RFC process was created specifically for stuff like this.
>
> One doesn't preclude the other. Pull is code, RFC is discussion, they
> can go in parallel.
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>

Well, technically it's discussion *and* vote.  I know we've been wanting to
get out of the habit of "push first, ask later," which is precisely what
RFC helps us avoid.  Personally, I think any commits for a non-minor change
(i.e. a new feature) should be branched and left unmerged until it passes
through the RFC voting process.  I'm a big fan of consistency over ad hoc
processes.  ;)

--Kris

--f46d043bd7e85c769004bd5d2600--