On 1/13/16, 6:46 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember
>> John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect
>> to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing
>> else matters.
Hi!
> Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember
> John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect
> to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing
> else matters. The following characterizations may seem wrong to you bu
On 1/13/16, 4:37 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> Yes we can!
>>
>> Let's say *we* would improve our conduct. I mean *we* as literally you
>> and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of internals
>> as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own individual condu
Hi!
> Yes we can!
>
> Let's say *we* would improve our conduct. I mean *we* as literally you
> and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of internals
> as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own individual conduct
Not by definition given by John - he said that "behavi
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 13:58, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
> I think you're actually missing the point as to why most of the people
> were against a CoC (or at least the proposed CoC). It wasn't a matter of
> what the status quo was, but that the CoC, at best, wouldn't solve the
> issues it was meant to
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> On 1/13/16 1:18 PM, Tom Worster wrote:
> > On 1/12/16 5:58 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >
> >> But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group".
> >
> > Yes we can!
> >
> > Let's say *we* would improve our conduct. I m
On 1/13/16 1:18 PM, Tom Worster wrote:
On 1/12/16 5:58 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group".
Yes we can!
Let's say *we* would improve our conduct. I mean *we* as literally you
and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "
On 1/12/16 5:58 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group".
Yes we can!
Let's say *we* would improve our conduct. I mean *we* as literally you
and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of internals
as a group" would im
Hi internals!
Voting has opened for the inclusion of a digit separator in PHP[1]. Voting ends
in
one week's time on January 20th.
Thanks,
Tom
[1]: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/number_format_separator
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To un
On 1/13/16 11:26 AM, Rouven Weßling wrote:
On 13 Jan 2016, at 16:23, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I don't think we can avoid some confusion, we could have had a three way
vote here (keep the current, expand #1, expand #2) but then people would
argue that the tho expand options should win in sum or one
> On 13 Jan 2016, at 16:15, Ryan Pallas wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Rouven Weßling
>> wrote:
>>
>> TL;DR: If you find yourself replying more than once an hour to a thread,
>> something is wrong.
>
> Yup, this is explicitly part of "mailing list rules"
>
> Do not post when yo
> On 13 Jan 2016, at 16:23, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
> I don't think we can avoid some confusion, we could have had a three way
> vote here (keep the current, expand #1, expand #2) but then people would
> argue that the tho expand options should win in sum or one of those
> separately. We could ha
On Jan 13, 2016 10:42 PM, "Joe Watkins" wrote:
>
> > The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented
> ahead of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and
> very clearly so:
>
> So what !?
>
> The terms are clearly biased towards the longest support peri
On 1/13/16 8:13 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
yeah, that(discussion only seems to happen after introducing the voting
phase) is frustrating for the rfc author, but that is the last phase
where
complaints can be voiced and most people have a tendency to defer stuff
until the last minute, that
Oops; missed reply-to-all:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> Not that I particularly care about this outcome, but there were only
>> "42" Yes votes, and "2" No votes. As the voting says for the second part
>> "ONLY IF YOU CHOSE 'YES' ABOVE: ", there should only be 42 votes
I honestly think most of the people who have replied dragging on this
nonsense have been top-posting, so you'll excuse me if I feel that argument
is moot.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Peter Lind wrote:
> On 13 January 2016 at 16:49, Adam Howard wrote:
>
>> Alright, you want a straight up a
On 13 January 2016 at 16:49, Adam Howard wrote:
> Alright, you want a straight up answer, I'll provide you one. Here is
> my constructive criticism. I'd like to be able to opt-out of this
> conversation and not further have it flood my inbox and be able to actually
> get back to what matters an
And I'll repeat..
If you want to write that code of conduct, please, feel free to actually
publish an outline code of conduct here, right now, and I and everyone else
will be happy to review it. Because as it stands now, all I hear (read) is
arguing and complaining, but you've yet to offer an act
I'm pretty sure everyone here has ignored emails before. A CoC is pretty
darn important(in my opinion) but if you've decided the discussion isn't
useful to you, just add a filter or just don't open the emails. Its not
that hard.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:52 AM John Bafford wrote:
> Adam, Sascha
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> > The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented
> ahead of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and
> very clearly so:
>
> So what !?
>
so this should have been brought up before the voting was
Alright, you want a straight up answer, I'll provide you one. Here is
my constructive criticism. I'd like to be able to opt-out of this
conversation and not further have it flood my inbox and be able to actually
get back to what matters and what I and most everyone else signed up for
(PHP Develop
> The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented
ahead of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and
very clearly so:
So what !?
The terms are clearly biased towards the longest support period if "no, I
don't want to extend support period" is going to
Adam, Sascha,
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 08:53, Adam Howard wrote:
>
> Well, I'm glad someone is in agreement. I really wish we'd get back to the
> actual code. Because if not, I do think perhaps PHP Internals as outlived
> the email format and should migrate to a forum format. I think I and man
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
> > >
> > > no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support".
> > > Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosin
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Rouven Weßling
wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:57, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > I don't see it that way. I think I provided very relevant feedback -
> that yes, called for a very substantial revision of the proposal and a
> removal of a substantial part of it -
Hi all,
> On Jan 12, 2016, at 17:07, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> Out of 45 approved RFC, 34 would have cleared a 90% bar, 35 would have
> cleared an 85% bar, and 38 would have cleared a 75% bar.
>
> To the best of my recollection, all of the RFCs that generated major storms
> fall in the these 7
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
> >
> > no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support".
> > Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the most
> > restrictive schedule as a result.
> > (Interpreting
> On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:57, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> I don't see it that way. I think I provided very relevant feedback - that
> yes, called for a very substantial revision of the proposal and a removal of
> a substantial part of it - but I still marked the concept of having a CoC as
> a good
Le 12/01/2016 20:29, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:00 PM, François Laupretre
wrote:
Le 12/01/2016 15:52, Dan Ackroyd a écrit :
François Laupretre wrote:
I would like the process to be amended to disable posting
opinions/discussions about an RFC while the vote is open,
c
Results for project PHP master, build date 2016-01-13 06:30:32+02:00
commit: bef1245
previous commit:786d959
revision date: 2016-01-12 16:48:44+01:00
environment:Haswell-EP
cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores,
stepping 2, LLC 45 MB
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:16 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Joe Watkins ; PHP internals
>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline
>
> I agree,
>
> no votes should be meaning "I want as
> -Original Message-
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:59 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: John Bafford ; PHP internals
>
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines
> (WAS: Adopt Code of Conduct)
>
> On Tue, 12
Well, I'm glad someone is in agreement. I really wish we'd get back to the
actual code. Because if not, I do think perhaps PHP Internals as outlived
the email format and should migrate to a forum format. I think I and many
others did not subscribe to a mailing list for this type of argument and
Hi,
the patch looks ok. Sorry that I borked this.
Will push it in a short!
Thanks,
Andrey
On 13.01.2016 14:37, John Bafford wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone take a look at this PR to fix a crash with mysqli_connect arising
with a mysqlnd refactor in e81ecc80c in master from November:
https://git
Hi all,
Can someone take a look at this PR to fix a crash with mysqli_connect arising
with a mysqlnd refactor in e81ecc80c in master from November:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1723
When attempting to mysqlI_connect(‘localhost’, ‘user’, ‘pass), the
mysqlnd_conn_data::get_scheme introduc
On 13 January 2016 at 13:16, Bob Weinand wrote:
> I agree,
>
> no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support".
> Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the most
> restrictive schedule as a result.
> (Interpreting it like "you need 50%+1 of the total to g
I agree,
no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support".
Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the most
restrictive schedule as a result.
(Interpreting it like "you need 50%+1 of the total to get it extended so far".)
Hence Security Support until Dec 3
The no votes should be counted as votes for option one schedule.
Which makes the vote a tie, and if any changes are going to be made, we
should be using option 1 schedule, not 2 ...
Cheers
Joe
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> All,
>
> The vote has been closed. It was ap
Developing the PHP runtime
Maintaining an official, bundled PHP extension
Maintaining the documentation
Translating the documentation
Maintaining php.net
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
All,
The vote has been closed. It was approved 42 to 2 (95.5% in favor).
There was a close race between the two available extended schedules, and the
one selected is Active Support until December 31st 2016, and Security Support
until December 31st 2018.
Thanks to everyone who participated & vo
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I think that no matter what we do, CoC, guidelines or teams we have in
> place - as long as there'll be divisive RFCs, there are going to be
> heated, toxic discussions.
I think the main issue is the whole concept of "divisive RFCs" as a
term. An RFC
On 13/01/16 05:33, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> It's the divisive RFCs that are the key source of the contention on
> internals, and any solution that won't strongly discourage them is not going
> to solve the problem. There needs to be something built into the system that
> makes RFC authors not only
2016-01-13 7:26 GMT+01:00 Sascha Schumann
:
> > On January 12, 2016 at 7:05 PM Adam Howard
> wrote:
> >
> > Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because if
> > not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should
> migrate
> > to a forum type format.
>
> A
43 matches
Mail list logo
