Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60563 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 30438 invoked from network); 14 May 2012 07:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 May 2012 07:02:55 -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 67.192.241.123 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.123 smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.123] ([67.192.241.123:53736] helo=smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CA/20-28479-C1EA0BF4 for ; Mon, 14 May 2012 03:02:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A2A027817C; Mon, 14 May 2012 03:02:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 389F178141; Mon, 14 May 2012 03:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FB0AE18.1060902@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 00:02:48 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: Nikita Popov , "internals@lists.php.net" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > As Stas suggested earlier, it would help if you can convince one > person having voted none or both to choose the empty only option, then > you should be good. It is not that good in general, but for 1/3 of a > voice for something like that ... :) AFAIK 2 of the people voting "both" (myself included) already said they are OK with "empty only". But in general, what is happening now is exactly what I was concerned about when we have started this voting thing - that decision becomes matter of formal incidents having nothing to do... well, with anything on the merits of the proposal. Support we lack one vote and do not implement it - then we didn't implement a feature because somebody who could add one crucial vote was on vacation or too busy or missed the email. I don't think it's a good situation. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227