Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83321
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_nt8B+VO3zpu2NMDdUyYFwVuGXA0Owos8fNgcHiH2sHpg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL=_i_mdb1GvYFZr1ZEqvCgZ3+um-ZYuz5xAFZuwjwBcXsEk3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E5F77D.9090406@fischer.name>
	<CA+9eiLurXVtk0eKAuKF8uUb=6SVqZtatXSvZ9bnvW1gnb0hz4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E6F48A.9040906@fischer.name>
	<CAPwsocEiTSOM0EtFR52KNFCZNYG4dDguuyvNpk5kMKaRDwOZCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL=_i_m4gUy081cMM4Aw5St4OYxVfAXK0hDZ_fSR-ChZc_UUow@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E72FE7.9030803@googlemail.com>
	<54E7312D.9090404@googlemail.com>
	<CAL=_i_m44Nbabgx56p_Lo9w5hCW-=MW3rvyh_2-B-bV7e3NkBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E73E70.5020403@googlemail.com>
	<CAF+90c9gB67JfYG1M42YWSRLgENx3ixfghztJBN4okBRvyTCWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E74ADF.9040608@googlemail.com>
	<CAL=_i_nEpEhuahRcekoH=dBm9BQd2HTFGfqPjduNzGa+wpTuoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E7575A.5010800@googlemail.com>
	<CAL=_i_nt8B+VO3zpu2NMDdUyYFwVuGXA0Owos8fNgcHiH2sHpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:31:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7TX3ee5uy6mUWsou30C2jZNmw5EnDq-a-bDY685BH4RQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: Crypto Compress <cryptocompress@googlemail.com>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Expectations
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:
>> So it is fine to have one setting doing the exact same thing? Sorry, I
>> disagree. We know we need that in other areas. Like other recent RFCs,
>> we have solved them bottom-up. This one is no different.
>
> It's fine for an RFC to be focused on one thing. This is another subject.
>
>> So basically what you say is that this RFC, relying on things we
>> should clarify and define clearly so it will be consistent across the
>> engine and language, are not relevant to this RFC? I totally disagree
>> and hence my point that this RFC needs more (public) discussions and
>> things that are prerequisites for this RFC should be designed,
>> discussed and implemented before this RFC.
>
> I'm saying that this isn't a subject for this RFC, deciding if we're going
> to have multiple exception trees is simply not in scope.

Why I use the word "prerequisite" and not "part of this RFC".

>> I will certainly be the only one voting no at this stage, or maybe not
>> even voting because I simply feel like you discussed that already no
>> matter where and came to this RFC and say take it or leave it. I am
>> not a fan of this approach or we can rename "Request For Comments" to
>> "Request to Accept" as any kind of comments or feedback is simply not
>> taken into accounts.
>
> I'm sorry that you don't remember the discussion, but it did happen, the
> RFC has been in (more or less) it's current form for more than a year.
>
> The current form *is the result of discussion*.
>
> Please stop saying it hasn't been discussed, it has, a lot.

Some stuff covered by this RFC have part of a bigger discussions about
many different things.

Did we have a [RFC][Discuss] thread to actually discuss this exact
RFC? No, we did not. And it is cruelly needed.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org