Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65879 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45907 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2013 18:19:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Feb 2013 18:19:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lars@strojny.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lars@strojny.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain strojny.net from 46.4.40.248 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lars@strojny.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 46.4.40.248 milch.schokokeks.org Received: from [46.4.40.248] ([46.4.40.248:53657] helo=milch.schokokeks.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 11/A5-06160-D1C7E115 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:19:09 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.85] (p5099f5c8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [::ffff:80.153.245.200]) (AUTH: PLAIN lars@schokokeks.org, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by milch.schokokeks.org with ESMTPSA; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:19:04 +0100 id 0000000000000026.00000000511E7C18.000058FD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) In-Reply-To: <511E7B23.4070707@gmx.net> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:19:03 +0100 Cc: Julien Pauli , PHP Internals , David Soria Parra Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <511E7B23.4070707@gmx.net> To: David Soria Parra X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.5 upcoming roadmap From: lars@strojny.net (Lars Strojny) Hi David, thanks for the clarification, sounds like a plan :-) I'm not opposed to = including O+, quite the opposite but I want us to stick to our process. cu, Lars Am 15.02.2013 um 19:14 schrieb David Soria Parra : [...] >> I'm sorry, but you must be kidding doing such a change and skipping >> the RFC process altogether. This will seriously hurt the acceptance >> of the whole RFC process and there won=92t be a good argument against >> people just committing random changes without an RFC. How should I >> convince somebody with a working pull request to go ahead and deal >> with an RFC when we introduce changes like that "just like that". >>=20 >> Can we please stop the process insanity and stick to our own rules >> (or change them in a transparent way). >>=20 >> Thanks, Lars >>=20 >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >=20 > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRHnsjAAoJEKSanlo0ToXKmXAP/AuKTYfcm3PZdrOu9nqDkg8x > IjnsY5pMybDTbkJtLw96DT+5Zz24t9BdwBPwTRkKccLiYGavCQvV+ewdNUMEFrv7 > kbuyi6tgRbB/aUpocKXbzq5CRk19YcIZr3E4HXpeMHcNhXGbFRmXvk8yMUWlTGMn > Fsf6v9bs+4d/uCaSMr2jS56KgDTn9pseAbeDumj3L+EAZYF+k/lz0YuxNC7X3EUv > HclKiPBLroaYz0q4Yg+BHuBsCgkhGnzwxNlYfkCPHh8mZZFxUtcIkONgILgxsGMA > +ik51JzspZRkdvr+TpvE6Va5O52i3C31wxKelr4f2+dgDO7v28tqOxrOHYVZgpdY > NK3GOYDgp1YgphY0CY/J0IrK2yLjdqois7qynuyAwP7DxE/ytz6HFs4UuzPdM6Ry > sFXua/L5JFzHHO4jU1x47BDM/Blre2COQaMdB1GE2hgFIjKqU5cQRHxMG6VzGCct > UiWik8/1sLQKoMFQnSMBHbidlYbDCKd4kW2dyKjKw9Ok3MfW08VPZ/SBJNB2RDYP > aYD4OcVe9SE9kuJEP0sxs9f/s4xMmkiP6AYa/2e2L4UqfoT0bo20HrrA50h0lKXb > hkj/yOWB9f6qy3qUhDK5EdbSPK5i18cS5jWcseXLjHlE/xADWGrTyjAg2flaKAQT > xF5/opO8pfoi4PY6osQT > =3DiZJN > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >=20 > --=20 > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >=20