Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59710
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F8512AC.4030208@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>
	<CAKOpQSx5uT934-sYF-132pzrzwe1eqHK6j1itOafoLR+9scy0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F8512AC.4030208@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:26:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSzuyWEv8LW+qkSBiFe=27cNkvyA31zY0O+FnnGppJWD9w@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=f46d04447f47a70c9e04bd607c38
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow non-variable arguments to empty()
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d04447f47a70c9e04bd607c38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > 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
>
> Nobody's pushing anything. We're talking about implementing it in a
> fork, it's completely different thing.
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>

I must've missed that part.  Who was it that said this would be a separate
forked project?  If so, then yeah obviously it's not up to us one way or
another.  And if he's just committing changes locally and/or pushing to an
unmerged branch, then there's no harm because it's not actually touching
the trunk.  What I'm saying is that, before such changes are merged into
the actual PHP 5.4 branch, the idea needs to be voted on through the RFC
process.

Besides, it's a better idea to wait anyway because the simple act of
drafting the RFC helps the author to clarify exactly what s/he wants to do
before jumping into the code.  Furthermore, subsequent input from users may
change the direction, forcing the author to rewrite code, which wastes
time.  And if the proposal is rejected, that person would've written all
that code for nothing.

So either way you look at it, it seems to me at least that drafting the RFC
is the logical first step.

--Kris

--f46d04447f47a70c9e04bd607c38--