Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94422
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NpyyvLpNjWw5Bvjdt6s+oj74rcgwX8XKPjoZcsHmh6Teg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4Noe07E9--sasW-Fiw5B1hFFZbXDG2_wumkfZCbqM9wh7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9RCfLdFGgLVXtc3iPy-LcPK3cfKqHNz-7Mm+QygER1Tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1f39f97a-6aaf-8550-9f82-a7e80465f903@telia.com> <CAFMT4NrEPA31tL-vuyOHSO6=w+HjzGD6e-WUwyeROP2PKZ82Qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <be735c2f-ffa7-f430-3acf-09c5d13062fa@gmail.com> <CAFMT4Nq0JZ5=L9S-5SXknX-xLSeXLCqDp+D3J7R1_ecXzQ6rOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <319e2640-4f81-7b13-5135-be406e35c814@gmail.com> <c9dce35a-f390-a795-37aa-dd43d7653a8b@gmx.de>
 <CAFMT4NpyyvLpNjWw5Bvjdt6s+oj74rcgwX8XKPjoZcsHmh6Teg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:53:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-yArc=xuCZim9NVYET=BddgH_OpEm8zPTmV8Hhb02Dng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, 
	internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05b1d040b37f05371034dd
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] ReflectionType Improvements
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--94eb2c05b1d040b37f05371034dd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> > On 06.07.2016 at 11:23, Rowan Collins wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/07/2016 22:06, Levi Morrison wrote:
> >>
> >>> It would have been great if people actually contributed to the
> >>> discussion before voting phase, but such is life.
> >>
> >> Yes, for my part, I apologise that I didn't pay any attention to this
> >> RFC previously, and just happened upon this sub-thread. I can understand
> >> your frustration at this all coming so late.
> >
> > I agree that it is unfortunate that some of the discussion only happened
> > after the RFC has been put to voting.  However, there have only been 15
> > days between announcing the RFC and starting the vote (plus an
> > additional 6 days for a pre RFC announcement), and during this time
> > several other RFCs were also under discussion or in voting phase, what
> > made it hard to assess all of them in a timely manner.
>
> Just to clarify this: *all* of the discussion happened after the RFC
> was put into vote, not just some of it. I've talked to a few people
> off list to see why they voted no. There are several different reasons
> but nobody bothered to voice any of them until voting. How can we make
> better RFCs if people don't discuss until its too late?
>

My objections have been known before voting. I agree that it would have
been preferable to raise them on-list as well.

Nikita

--94eb2c05b1d040b37f05371034dd--