Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90671 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 92589 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2016 00:25:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Jan 2016 00:25:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:1024] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 11/D0-21588-2ED89965 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:25:08 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EBC54B003F; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 01:23:37 +0100 (CET) To: Dan Ackroyd , "internals@lists.php.net" References: Message-ID: <56998DD9.6050401@php.net> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 01:24:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160115-2, 15/01/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Close some old issues From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Le 15/01/2016 18:04, Dan Ackroyd a écrit : > > If anyone thinks they all ought to be kept open, that could be > discussed on list, but I would really like to avoid discussing each > one individually on list, as I don't think that would be productive. > > If anyone with wants to keep any of these issues open, please could > you assign them to yourself? Just assigned #14523 to me. May I ask not to close feature requests ? #14523, for example, is perfectly valid, even if dating back from 2001, and the requested feature will be proposed in an RFC targeting 7.1. The fact that the features were not implemented does not mean that the FR is silly or obsolete. Closing such FR means, either 'implemented', or 'won't fix', which is generally not the case. So, I won't support closing them en masse, just as a way to lower the number of open bugs. Regards François