On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Stefan Walk wrote:
There are cases where one user replied to
multiple mails in a short time without fighting, just explaining and
discussiong, and you don't want to block that - as well as it
wouldn't stop
random people from suggesting dropping the $ from variable
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 23:46, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 21:13 +0100, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>
>> I have more faith in our devs then that.
[snip a good chunk of stuff]
> Additionally I guess it would split discussions, so a "core" person
> proposes som
On 31 Oct 2008, at 19:59, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
Behavioural change is desperately needed, and I think developers
should lead by example.
One way to to that is to add a new internal-core@ mailinglist which
is
read-only to the world, and writeable by people with appropr
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 21:13 +0100, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> > This is the same as just making internals@ read-only. Once we have an
> > internals-core, many core people will just unsubscribe from the internals
> > list. I know I probably would. And once the core developers no longer read
> > it
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hi,
So some core developers as well as lurking end users have noted that the
traffic on this list prevents them from being able to follow this list.
This is obviously a huge problem since this mailinglist is supposed to
be our primary discussion and decision making to
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Hannes Magnusson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Read the whole thread before posting please:
>
>> "external" patches and "general" discussions would still be on the
>> internals@ list, as it would be the main discussion list.
I have been reading the entire thre
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 21:13, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This is the same as just making internals@ read-only. Once we have an
>> internals-core, many core people will just unsubscribe from the interna
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is the same as just making internals@ read-only. Once we have an
> internals-core, many core people will just unsubscribe from the internals
> list. I know I probably would. And once the core developers no longer
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 20:59, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>
>> Behavioural change is desperately needed, and I think developers
>> should lead by example.
>> One way to to that is to add a new internal-core@ mailinglist which is
>> read-only to the world, a
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 18:57, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 14:54 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> I'm not sure I like the idea of a strong credits page, it creates ego
>> related issues which are not helping. A general page with the list of
>> the QA contributor
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
Behavioural change is desperately needed, and I think developers
should lead by example.
One way to to that is to add a new internal-core@ mailinglist which is
read-only to the world, and writeable by people with appropriate
karma.
That list would be dedicated for _develo
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 20:30, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A simpler approach might be to just make the mailing list software enforce a
> 1 email per 24-hour day per user. It would require a bit more upfront work
Thats not going to work, we often have multiple threads going on. Ev
On Friday 31 October 2008 20:30:13 Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> A simpler approach might be to just make the mailing list software
> enforce a 1 email per 24-hour day per user. It would require a bit more
> upfront work to munge the software, but wouldn't require any ongoing
> effort. Moderation can g
A simpler approach might be to just make the mailing list software
enforce a 1 email per 24-hour day per user. It would require a bit more
upfront work to munge the software, but wouldn't require any ongoing
effort. Moderation can get messy since it isn't simply spam we or
off-topic messages
Hi Lukas
Sounds like a good idea to channel the volume on this list.
I was wondering, would the usergroup part be a replacement for the
moderated messages by regular users or would it be an addition to it?
I mean, we should better start promoting this one moderator-per-
usergroup to usergrou
Hi Lukas,
Here I come to the key part of my idea. We would allow every PHP
usergroup to also appoint one person that gets unmoderated access to the
list.
Great idea!
Lets just create an interface were people can register their UG and manage
the email address for the contact person (and m
Hi,
So some core developers as well as lurking end users have noted that
the traffic on this list prevents them from being able to follow this
list. This is obviously a huge problem since this mailinglist is
supposed to be our primary discussion and decision making tool.
I had a chat abou
Hi
I have tried to collect the various opinions on resolution order into
a single RFC:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceresolution
Proactive damage control:
I have also included some discussion on how the removable of function/
constants would affect the question of namespace resolution orde
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 14:54 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> I'm not sure I like the idea of a strong credits page, it creates ego
> related issues which are not helping. A general page with the list of
> the QA contributors or coordinators (@Zoe, dictactor-like ;) would be
> better and more flexible.
hi,
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Hannes Magnusson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My end-goal here is to face the facts: Quality assurance is about
> testing, providing builds for people to test on, look into bugs and
> everything along those lines.
> snaps.php.net, downloads.php.net/~randomguy2
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 14:54, Pierre Joye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's about Sanjay Mantoor, Feliix dV or all the other test fest
> attendees continuing their work after the end of the test fest?
Sure, after having "proven themselves" to be worth it for some period
of time, not like the on
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 13:16, Sebastian Bergmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hannes Magnusson schrieb:
Speaking of "QA people", how about crediting those who are actually
working on QA and removing the names who haven't been around for years
(I don't even recognized most
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Hannes Magnusson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 13:16, Sebastian Bergmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hannes Magnusson schrieb:
>>> Speaking of "QA people", how about crediting those who are actually
>>> working on QA and removing the names
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 13:16, Sebastian Bergmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hannes Magnusson schrieb:
>> Speaking of "QA people", how about crediting those who are actually
>> working on QA and removing the names who haven't been around for years
>> (I don't even recognized most of those names)?
Hannes Magnusson schrieb:
> Speaking of "QA people", how about crediting those who are actually
> working on QA and removing the names who haven't been around for years
> (I don't even recognized most of those names)?
How do you recommend measuring who deserves credit?
--
Sebastian Bergmann
25 matches
Mail list logo
