I really want to understand if we're gonna allow this RFC voting or not. That's important to reconsider my vote on STH
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2015 7:50 AM, "Benjamin Eberlei" <kont...@beberlei.de> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net] > > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:34 PM > > > > To: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; Stelian Mocanita > > > > Cc: Eli; PHP Internals List > > > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types > > > > > > > >Chance of this RFC passing is going to be slim, as it only caters for > one > > > >of the > > > > three groups that Antony described... > > > > > > > > I certainly will vote against it. > > > > > > You may very well be right, but the only way of truly knowing would be > > > putting it up for a vote. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if this was > also > > > available for a vote before moving my nay to yay on the Dual Mode RFC. > > > > > > > I don't get it. > > > > you called Andrea out for not putting up v1 of her RFC for vote because > it > > had so much momentum behind it. > > Instead of just doing what bwoebi did you put up another RFC that got > *much > > more* negative tone from the beginning. > > We agree on having a vote on two RFCs, coercive and v5. > > Now that coercive is the clear loser suddenly v1 must be up for vote as > > well? > > I totally agree with your comment, it looks a bit like a desperate move or > attempt to block or counter the other one. > > We should really stop that... > > > You had the chance to do just this. > > > > > > Zeev > > > > > > -- > > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > -- Guilherme Blanco MSN: guilhermebla...@hotmail.com GTalk: guilhermeblanco Toronto - ON/Canada
