Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66928 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 7519 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2013 21:00:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Apr 2013 21:00:44 -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 108.166.43.83 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.83 smtp83.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.83] ([108.166.43.83:57697] helo=smtp83.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 58/C8-07534-B789C515 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:00:44 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8E09A50124; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:00:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 227B1500EA; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <515C9878.8060603@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:00:40 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hannes Magnusson CC: Ferenc Kovacs , Laruence , PHP Internals References: <515BE6C2.7000801@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Add a constant to reflect --with-curlwrappers From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > There is absolutely no need for a RFC for it. > Heck, even that initial curtesy mail was more then I would have expected. Agree, no need for full scale RFC for one constant. However, sending an email to the list and actually waiting for feedback is exactly what I would expect, especially dealing with stable version and feature that it is not exactly clear what's going on with it. We're not talking about writing RFCs for every minor change, we're talking about teamwork and have members of the team be aware of the change and have time to discuss it if needed. Nothing bad would happen if the same commit would land a week later, after everybody is behind it and every detail is hashed out (or not if turns out it is out of consensus). The point here is not to impede work but to support teamwork. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227