Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63560
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612C2581@MBX214.domain.local>
References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612C2581@MBX214.domain.local>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:16:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6z4cwmDa3sCWtmNxrnHpj2euVftTK6vOYWGF15yPnyfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Accessors v1.1 -> v1.2 Summary
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:
> Hey everyone, seems like the conversations have died down and I've attempted to go back through all of the emails and produce a 1.1 -> 1.2 document which summarizes what I believe are decided, being debated, issues, todos, etc.
>
> Pierre had pointed out that I had partially changed the "as-implemented" document which no longer reflected what the fork implements.  So... I have reverted that document to the 1.1 version.

You can use branches as well, and refer to them in the RFC. Going back
and forth and loosing track or ability to test a given feature or
option is not that good to evaluate the choices :)

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org