Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94667 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74338 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2016 05:51:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Jul 2016 05:51:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ohgaki.net designates 180.42.98.130 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@ohgaki.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 180.42.98.130 ns1.es-i.jp Received: from [180.42.98.130] ([180.42.98.130:37356] helo=es-i.jp) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B9/7A-05797-06754975 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 01:51:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 56057 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jul 2016 05:51:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-qk0-f174.google.com) (yohgaki@ohgaki.net@209.85.220.174) by 0 with ESMTPA; 24 Jul 2016 05:51:25 -0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id x1so132883116qkb.3 for ; Sat, 23 Jul 2016 22:51:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvo64s+z2AkXkvv6ScwIfw2bF5rHwKTXG2+VihCofZOekTG7WhfkdtjdWWmxMYRRkwJoLTilP0sFEZgJg== X-Received: by 10.55.22.154 with SMTP id 26mr15011782qkw.193.1469339478639; Sat, 23 Jul 2016 22:51:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.85.242 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Jul 2016 22:50:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 14:50:39 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Davey Shafik Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Session ID without hashing - Reopened From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) Hi Davey, On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Davey Shafik wrote: > > It didn't actually reopen, and just setting closed to false, it kept the > original votes. So I added a second vote below. Bonus: the original is also > preserved. > > Hope that's OK. Oops, I thought flip-flopped the switch. Thanks you but wouldn't it easier with single vote entry? If you don't mind, I would like to have single vote section because this is reopen for a RFC defect. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net