[VOTE] ArrayIterator improvements

9 years ago by netmo.php@gmail.com — view source — reply

unread

Greetings PHPeople,

I've just started the voting on the RFC at the URL...

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arrayiterator-improvements

...skipping the discussion period entirely as it's about small additions
and there's (hopefully) not much to discuss about.

This is my first RFC, and I hope I'm not starting a catastrophe. In case,
I'm sorry. :P

Voting will end on 6 December 2016.

Thanks, Wes

9 years ago by Levi Morrison — view source — reply

unread

Greetings PHPeople,

I've just started the voting on the RFC at the URL...

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arrayiterator-improvements

...skipping the discussion period entirely as it's about small additions
and there's (hopefully) not much to discuss about.

This is my first RFC, and I hope I'm not starting a catastrophe. In case,
I'm sorry. :P

Voting will end on 6 December 2016.

Thanks, Wes

Thank you for your enthusiasm, Wes, but you need to allow a two week
discussion period as per our howto document.

9 years ago by Stanislav Malyshev — view source — reply

unread

Hi!

Greetings PHPeople,

I've just started the voting on the RFC at the URL...

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/arrayiterator-improvements

...skipping the discussion period entirely as it's about small additions
and there's (hopefully) not much to discuss about.

That's not how RFC work. There should be discussion period. Please
follow the process.

--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

9 years ago by Stanislav Malyshev — view source — reply

unread

Hi!

I'm not a internals programmer myself but I have consulted some and they
said proposed features are ok and implementation would be trivial, so I
thought it was ok to do this. Sorry for that.

If proposed features are so trivial that they do not warrant any
discussion, then there's no need for RFC. Part of RFC process is
inviting people to discuss the changes. That's what it for. Jumping
straight to vote is not how it's supposed to work. I don't know if it
happened in the past - it shouldn't have, but if it did, it was wrong
and should not be repeated.

Minimal discussion period for non-language RFC is one week. Please do
read https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting before proposing votes. It's the
minimum you could do.

Thanks,

Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

9 years ago by netmo.php@gmail.com — view source — reply

unread

Okay. But just for the record, it's about very tiny additions... aren't 4
weeks for that too much?

Also, in my defense, I'm not the first doing that. I don't remember exactly
but there was a RFC about ext/intl it was put straight to votes as it was
about small additions.

I'm not a internals programmer myself but I have consulted some and they
said proposed features are ok and implementation would be trivial, so I
thought it was ok to do this. Sorry for that.

(Sorry Stas for the multiple replies)

2016-11-22 18:30 GMT+01:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com:

Hi!

I'm not a internals programmer myself but I have consulted some and they
said proposed features are ok and implementation would be trivial, so I
thought it was ok to do this. Sorry for that.

If proposed features are so trivial that they do not warrant any
discussion, then there's no need for RFC. Part of RFC process is
inviting people to discuss the changes. That's what it for. Jumping
straight to vote is not how it's supposed to work. I don't know if it
happened in the past - it shouldn't have, but if it did, it was wrong
and should not be repeated.

Minimal discussion period for non-language RFC is one week. Please do
read https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting before proposing votes. It's the
minimum you could do.

Thanks,

Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

9 years ago by Rowan Collins — view source — reply

unread

Okay. But just for the record, it's about very tiny additions... aren't 4
weeks for that too much?

If it's calendar time you're worried about, don't sweat it - the RFC
rightly targets 7.2, which won't be released for almost exactly a year.
So even if we started the vote now, and there was a patch ready by the
time it closed (there doesn't seem to be one yet?), there'd still be
another 50 weeks after that before it showed up in a live release.

If you pause for 2 weeks of feedback first, it will be released at
exactly the same time, but have 48 weeks in the code base with nobody
using it instead of 50. :)

Regards,

--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]

9 years ago by netmo.php@gmail.com — view source — reply

unread

Just wanted to save everybody's time. 4 weeks seemed an enormity for that.
But obviously there is no hurry.

2016-11-22 21:34 GMT+01:00 Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com:

Okay. But just for the record, it's about very tiny additions... aren't 4
weeks for that too much?

If it's calendar time you're worried about, don't sweat it - the RFC
rightly targets 7.2, which won't be released for almost exactly a year. So
even if we started the vote now, and there was a patch ready by the time it
closed (there doesn't seem to be one yet?), there'd still be another 50
weeks after that before it showed up in a live release.

If you pause for 2 weeks of feedback first, it will be released at exactly
the same time, but have 48 weeks in the code base with nobody using it
instead of 50. :)

Regards,

--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]

9 years ago by Joe Watkins — view source — reply

unread

Morning Wes,

I'm not sure that you justified the inconsistency in error management.

Why shouldn't it throw InvalidArgumentException ?

Cheers
Joe

Just wanted to save everybody's time. 4 weeks seemed an enormity for that.
But obviously there is no hurry.

2016-11-22 21:34 GMT+01:00 Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com:

Okay. But just for the record, it's about very tiny additions... aren't
4
weeks for that too much?

If it's calendar time you're worried about, don't sweat it - the RFC
rightly targets 7.2, which won't be released for almost exactly a year.
So
even if we started the vote now, and there was a patch ready by the time
it
closed (there doesn't seem to be one yet?), there'd still be another 50
weeks after that before it showed up in a live release.

If you pause for 2 weeks of feedback first, it will be released at
exactly
the same time, but have 48 weeks in the code base with nobody using it
instead of 50. :)

Regards,

--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]