Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74141 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 92804 invoked from network); 12 May 2014 23:56:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 May 2014 23:56:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.215.10 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.215.10 mail.experimentalworks.net Received: from [217.114.215.10] ([217.114.215.10:41532] helo=mail.experimentalworks.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B7/31-17377-DBF51735 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 19:56:45 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.31] (ppp-93-104-4-29.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.4.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: johannes@schlueters.de) by mail.experimentalworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B5CE4668C; Tue, 13 May 2014 01:57:39 +0200 (CEST) To: Stas Malyshev Cc: Pierre Joye , PHP internals , Andrea Faulds In-Reply-To: <53713E17.3010608@sugarcrm.com> References: <53712E8B.9000406@sugarcrm.com> <53713E17.3010608@sugarcrm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 01:56:29 +0200 Message-ID: <1399938989.3896.39.camel@guybrush> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] phpng, migration guide draft From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 14:33 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > I disagree. These changes are perfectly valid as rfc and should be > > proposed as any other changes. > > > > By this principle, everything in PHP introduced since we have the wiki > should live under rfc namespace, since it was a change which has to be > proposed as an RFC. I think such usage of rfc namespace makes it useless > as it would mix pages pertaining to the rfc process as such (proposing > the change, discussing it, etc.) with pages used to document various things. Just to rephrase in a way we all understand and agree (hopefully): * If this change is added it requires an RFC, under rfc/ * Now is too early for an RFC on such a complex topic * The whole set of documentation is too much for an RFC * This basic documentation should be in a namespace (phpng/ or maybe internals/phpng/) * The RFC can quote and link that documentation once it is being proposed * Lateron this should end up in the PHP docs johannes