Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82795 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34176 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2015 08:54:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Feb 2015 08:54:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@beccati.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@beccati.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain beccati.com designates 176.9.114.167 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@beccati.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 176.9.114.167 spritz.beccati.com Received: from [176.9.114.167] ([176.9.114.167:57318] helo=mail.beccati.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 25/B8-05176-A30B1E45 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 03:54:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 20228 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2015 08:54:14 -0000 Received: from home.beccati.com (HELO ?192.168.1.202?) (88.149.176.119) by mail.beccati.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2015 08:54:14 -0000 Message-ID: <54E1B02D.1000408@beccati.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:54:05 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanislav Malyshev , internals@lists.php.net References: <54E11E84.7050909@pascal-martin.fr> <54E17E0A.1040309@gmail.com> <54E1ADA3.8020101@beccati.com> <54E1AE57.5050807@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54E1AE57.5050807@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Spaceship operator RFC From: php@beccati.com (Matteo Beccati) Hi Stas! >> About your question, I don't know... treating a cancelled voting result >> as if it wasn't might be setting a weird precedent, even though it was >> so close to the end and had an overwhelming majority. > > The only reason it was cancelled because of Andrea quitting, and with > one day left result is pretty clear. Running the same vote again with > 4:1 for sounds pointless to me. If it was a close one then fine, but > it's not really close. > If anybody would want to abuse this in the future as a precedent for > gaming the system, we'll deal with it then appropriately, I'm sure. A bit of flexibility surely doesn't hurt, indeed. I just thought it was worth to raise it. I personally have no objections. Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/