Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97112
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.177 as permitted sender)
To: Adam Baratz <adam.baratz@gmail.com>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CADxrgCOGTkJR6WiGSoN4412jeakY5xNh78ZraPdhc0J7SVrDsg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <816f88ae-52aa-9784-1780-e9727be2c319@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:50:51 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADxrgCOGTkJR6WiGSoN4412jeakY5xNh78ZraPdhc0J7SVrDsg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Debugging PDO Prepared Statement Emulation
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

On 11/16/16 3:06 PM, Adam Baratz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> No, you're not misreading the subject line. I began working on the docs for
> the previously accepted proposal and became uncomfortable with the
> approach. I think it will be better to integrate this info into
> PDOStatement::debugDumpParams(). It will let me do the testing I want to do
> without introducing a new API, which was the primary concern expressed in
> the previous discussion.
> 
> I reverted the code I'd committed, updated the RFC with an example, and
> reset the vote:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/debugging_pdo_prepared_statement_emulation

I don't think this is how RFC process is supposed to work. If the
proposal is not mature enough, it should be discussed or worked on more.
Committing it, then reverting it and immediately starting another vote
is definitely not what should be done. It looks highly irregular and
suggests that this is not mature enough. Also, jumping right into the
vote is definitely not how it should work. If anything, more discussion
period is needed to see why the approach that was accepted is not good
enough, and to ensure the errors made on the previous one are not repeated.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com