Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65235 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 83630 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 12:03:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 12:03:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cpriest@zerocue.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cpriest@zerocue.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zerocue.com designates 67.200.53.250 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cpriest@zerocue.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.200.53.250 mail.zerocue.com Received: from [67.200.53.250] ([67.200.53.250:53934] helo=mail.zerocue.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 66/B6-28517-51966015 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:03:38 -0500 Received: from [172.17.0.122] (unknown [70.112.216.188]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.zerocue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2273D12037B; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5106690E.6040908@zerocue.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:03:26 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zeev Suraski CC: Pierre Joye , PHP internals References: <76a9565b2a095a72063a68f106a6b457@mail.gmail.com> <5ed6711b24349c82b7c17dd450ff7c80@mail.gmail.com> <7165e8331e1070234771f7ae9573cdf8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7165e8331e1070234771f7ae9573cdf8@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint Priest) On 1/28/2013 5:19 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I feel that this is what was done in this particular case, not the > other way around. That what brought me to bring up that subject here > in the first place. This particular RFC was the only RFC where I > noticed this weird 'no sooner than' language, and it seemed > intentional to me - given the fact it's a very controversial feature > opposed by most core devs. If we want to change the default voting > period to two weeks, that's fine - but IMHO it should be for future > RFCs after it gets approved. Actually, it was not done on purpose but was mimicking what many other RFC "vote sections" do, I thought it was the way it was supposed to be done, see: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_column If you're still worried about this making it in, don't worry. Nikita and I have given up, to the determinant of the community. -Clint > Zeev -- -Clint