Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76498 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98164 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2014 21:31:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Aug 2014 21:31:33 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.215.11 experimentalworks.net Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:31:32 -0400 Received: from [217.114.215.11] ([217.114.215.11:1799] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9E/04-03780-339DBE35 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:31:32 -0400 To: internals@lists.php.net References: User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: X-Posted-By: 217.114.215.11 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Mutliple defaults in switch statements From: dsp@php.net (David Soria Parra) On 2014-08-12, Sara Golemon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> On 12 Aug 2014, at 17:53, Sara Golemon wrote: >>> Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote >> >> I’m all for this, but the *minimum* discussion period is *two* weeks. >> > The two-week period is advisory and we don't need to get hung up on > process for the sake of process. There's been no meaningful > discussion in the past week because nobody thinks this is remotely a > bad idea. Hell, some have questioned why this was put into an RFC in > the first place. (It's arguably a bug, since the existing behavior > could never have been described as right or intentional). > > If you're so worried about violating RFC process, I can revoke it > entirely and just commit it without voting, and I'd be completely in > the right. Or, we can apply a reasonable amount of process without > getting hung up on seven days worth of... no discussion whatsoever. > > -Sara I agree with Sara here. The process if for human and not for it's own sake. Trivial and non-controversial changes like this really don't need the nitpicking which is going on.