Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83251
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <04c701d04c99$ab0da5d0$0128f170$@php.net>
References: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADR=R-iBDWCAeaRh53txfKvvL4ccKA9Fr8Bg68wt0NEHkJefbQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nEcOkFctzy0nYra2WSTKAHZ8UKB_r1mqmsGojZxAkR5pQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<04c701d04c99$ab0da5d0$0128f170$@php.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:20:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CALwr1GnK6c0hmCyYBK4zSJiBVu6HTMORnnt2+J=_A-n5VMe=2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: francois@php.net
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, 
	Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5)
From: padraic.brady@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?=)

Hi Fran=C3=A7ois,

On 19 February 2015 at 23:13, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.net> wr=
ote:
> I never asked anyone to abandon his work. I just asked to respect the rul=
es. What I told you first is that, while Sara did not resigned formally, I =
didn't see why you could publish derived concurrent work from the RFC she w=
as currently owning (and I don't use reddit, sorry).
>
> Now, it is still not very clear to me whether we have one or two active R=
FCs at this time...
>
> You will be surprised but I prefer the way you're dealing with Andrea's R=
FC, because you are just taking over, orienting but not denaturing anything=
 she did, and that's fine, even if we don't fully agree. The reason I didn'=
t formally take over the RFC first is that I considered I would denature he=
r work and couldn't do that (while it would have brought me less problems, =
finally).

As I understand it, Andrea left her RFC free to be reused, reopened
and derived without any specific limitation. It would therefore appear
that it would be possible for there to be 100 derived RFCs all owned
by different people, i.e. nobody has an exclusive right to either the
RFC text or the concept of scalar typehints insofar as I understand
it. Nevertheless, 0.5 following 0.4 leads to certain obvious
assumptions that for good or ill may be made in the absence of the
full picture. This all sounds like a simple misunderstanding under
exceptional circumstances.

As I believe Sara noted before, she will work with either of the RFCs
(yours or Anthony's) as it fits her own purposes, so it will boil down
to whichever RFCs gets published in the end. There's one up. I assume
yours will follow. That shall make two :).

Paddy

--
P=C3=A1draic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.survivethedeepend.com