On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Now, if we are still adamant on coming up with a CoC first I would like
>> to put forward the following 3 documents as alternatives for the
>> Contributor Covenant:
>>
>>
>> [A contribution policy for open source that
>> works](
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 25/01/2016 05:06, Yasuo Ohgaki a écrit :
> As I add comments in code, session_write_close() should not do
> anything but the test script assumes write/close is called? I've
> tested with Fedora 23's PHP 5.6.17 and got the expected result
Yes, The
Hi!
> You've watered down the text about bad behaviour in general and in
> particular the bits explicitly listing bad behaviour surrounding
> discussion of RFCs; I do not like that direction.
I purposefully removed some examples of bad behavior, restricting it to
minimal list showing in broad lin
Hi!
> Now, if we are still adamant on coming up with a CoC first I would like
> to put forward the following 3 documents as alternatives for the
> Contributor Covenant:
>
>
> [A contribution policy for open source that
> works](https://medium.com/@jmaynard/a-contribution-policy-for-open-source-t
Hi Remi,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
>>
>> It seems that using a user land SessionHandler, the "write" method is
>> not called, raising this issue.
>
> Thank you. I'll check it soon. (in a few days)
Thank you for
Hi Remi,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
>
> It seems that using a user land SessionHandler, the "write" method is
> not called, raising this issue.
Thank you. I'll check it soon. (in a few days)
I'm not sure what's causing it now, but I'll find it out.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Oh
Everyone,
I been following the discussion over the weekend, albeit I been hesitant
to post again I decided to write a blog post with everything in my mind
regarding the subject. Feel free to read it at
http://coderoncode.com/community/2016/01/24/on-codes-on-conduct.html
Now, back to the issu
Or, is the purpose of the CoC really a device to control perceptions, i.e.
protect the image of the PHP project and its citizens?
Well, that would also be a benefit. I don't think these are exclusive
goals. If PHP isn't inviting, people won't want to contribute.
What I fear is that if the c
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 16:48, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> A significant number of technical RFC discussions have been less
> productive than they should be, due to people repeatedly sending
> emails against an RFC, that repeat what they have already said, which
> is not a productive use of anyone's t
On 24 January 2016 at 20:27, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
> if people here agree it's a good direction
You've watered down the text about bad behaviour in general and in
particular the bits explicitly listing bad behaviour surrounding
discussion of RFCs; I do not like that direction.
A signi
Hi Sharon,
Sharon Levy wrote:
After reviewing the proposed CoC, I wonder if its good intent might
boom-a-rang and have an opposite, chilling effect. I would respectfully
suggest re-thinking the notion of a CoC for the PHP project. Some
questions to consider:
1. Who is the CoC for, i.e. who s
On 24 Jan 2016 19:44, "Marco Pivetta" wrote:
>
> On 24 January 2016 at 20:34, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2016 14:49, "Marco Pivetta"
>> >
>> > The BC breaks may happen in future, given the number of added
parameters. You even designed your additional parameters to avoid BC
breaks: what
After reviewing the proposed CoC, I wonder if its good intent might
boom-a-rang and have an opposite, chilling effect. I would respectfully
suggest re-thinking the notion of a CoC for the PHP project. Some questions
to consider:
1. Who is the CoC for, i.e. who should be its beneficiaries? U
Hi!
As I promised, in the spirit of constructive cooperation I've written an
example of how I would like our CoC to look:
https://github.com/smalyshev/php-community-health/blob/new-coc/RFC.rst
I do not see it as a final result but rather a draft that would provide
a direction and (if people here
Hi!
> That's true, but I think that somewhat goes against the point of
> having a 'penalizing CoC'. The list of violation is supposed to be
> detailed and exhaustive.
Well, this is part of the problem with "penal code". To create and
maintain one, there are teams of very highly paid professional
On 24 January 2016 at 20:34, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2016 14:49, "Marco Pivetta"
> >
> > The BC breaks may happen in future, given the number of added
> parameters. You even designed your additional parameters to avoid BC
> breaks: what will happen next time someone needs additional func
On 24 Jan 2016 14:49, "Marco Pivetta"
>
> The BC breaks may happen in future, given the number of added parameters.
You even designed your additional parameters to avoid BC breaks: what will
happen next time someone needs additional functionality?
I'm not aware about any new functionality that cou
On 22.01.2016, at 17:43, Florian Anderiasch wrote:
>
> On 22.01.2016 15:29, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> Freshly adopted:
>>
>> http://rubyonrails.org/conduct/
>> https://golang.org/conduct
>>
>
> Ruby (the language) is discussing the adoption of a Code of Conduct
> right now, and several people
On 24 January 2016 at 13:08, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23 Jan 2016 21:01, "Marco Pivetta" wrote:
> >
> > Just FYI, I'm voting against this proposal, as the number of parameters
> is simply growing out of control, which involves:
> > - more BC breaks if default parameters change
>
> What
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 7:51 AM
> To: Andrea Faulds ; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> Hi!
>
> > This is a question I'm wondering about
Hi,
On 23 Jan 2016 21:01, "Marco Pivetta" wrote:
>
> Just FYI, I'm voting against this proposal, as the number of parameters
is simply growing out of control, which involves:
> - more BC breaks if default parameters change
What bc breaks? There are no defaults except tag length and that will ne
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 7:38 AM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> Hi Zeev,
>
> Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > One thing which isn't clear to me is whe
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> > I've been reading the mini-thread that followed this message, and I'm
>> wondering, almost out loud:
>> > Isn't it obvious we're trying to create an amateur drive-by judicial
>> > system,
>> borrowing ideas from the law (some mostly univer
On 24/01/2016 04:52, Andrea Faulds wrote:
The Go one looks pretty great to me. It might not be such a bad idea
if we were to adopt it almost verbatim.
I also don't think we need to write anything new. Other people have
done that legwork for us, we are wasting our time if we try to create
some
> > I've been reading the mini-thread that followed this message, and I'm
> wondering, almost out loud:
> > Isn't it obvious we're trying to create an amateur drive-by judicial system,
> borrowing ideas from the law (some mostly universal, some not),
> oversimplifying them (amateurishly, as we wou
Hi Scott,
On 24 January 2016 at 03:25, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
> I think focusing on the extreme behaviors is harmful towards a mature and
> progressive discussion on these matters. My opinion is based on two
> premises:
>
> 1. Good opsec, which career criminals and dedicated harassers would be
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Pádraic Brady wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 24 January 2016 at 02:31, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> perspective. The absolute best we can do is just that - the absolute
>>> best. And it's entirely responsible to ensure that it IS the absolute
>>> best that can be
Hi All.
Am 23.01.16 um 18:43 schrieb Brandon Savage:
> All,
>
> It's encouraging to see people working hard to improve and expand on the
> proposed Code of Conduct for PHP. The strenuous and passionate debates
> aside, I'm pleased to see so many people working on this together.
>
> I want to pro
Hi,
On 24 January 2016 at 02:31, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> perspective. The absolute best we can do is just that - the absolute
>> best. And it's entirely responsible to ensure that it IS the absolute
>> best that can be achieved.
>
> I think this is an incorrect approach - both in mak
29 matches
Mail list logo
