Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90672
Return-Path: <francois@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 94180 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2016 00:29:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 16 Jan 2016 00:29:05 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; 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] ([212.27.42.2:9576] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 5E/21-21588-1DE89965 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:29:05 -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 DA97A4B0090;
	Sat, 16 Jan 2016 01:27:35 +0100 (CET)
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>,
 Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CA+kxMuSbgyzQ14j+YeVJo6a1ephgvB9tmjr35Ty7VTB2=2y_dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <56994046.3080605@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56998EC7.40508@php.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 01:28:55 +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: <56994046.3080605@gmail.com>
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 19:53, Stanislav Malyshev a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Those that do require RFC I think is fine to close. Maybe have a
> standard text for that - like "This request describes a change that is
> substantial enough to warrant an RFC. Please read <link> and submit an
> RFC for the consideration for the community".

Not just a standard text, a new specific 'Require RFC' status too, so 
that they can be easily retrieved.

Regards

François