On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 9:03 PM Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-11-02 at 19:40 +0100, Joe Watkins wrote:
> > I would like to question the reasoning behind wanting to "own" the
> > RFC content: We don't require any such thing for any other kind of PR
> > although we say we require a patch o
On 25-10-19 12:22, Nikita Popov wrote:
> For reference, here are the results I get with/without JIT:
> https://gist.github.com/nikic/2a2d363fffaa3aeb251da976f0edbc33
I toyed a bit with the benchmark script (union_bench.php) as well and
wanted to share some observations. First of all I noticed the
On Sat, 2019-11-02 at 19:40 +0100, Joe Watkins wrote:
> I would like to question the reasoning behind wanting to "own" the
> RFC content: We don't require any such thing for any other kind of PR
> although we say we require a patch on bugsnet, we actually don't
> require it. So, I have a hard time
Evening Nikita,
This is not really what we imagined when we started to discuss using github
for pull requests - everything is going to end up on the wiki anyway.
I do think this is a very reasonable first step, given how the discussion
went on github and given the general feeling that we ought to
Hi internals,
Now that the union types RFC is drawing to a close, I think it's time to
discuss the question of RFCs in GitHub pull requests again. Overall I'm
fairly pleased with how this went and would like to adopt the process in
some form.
In particular, I would like to start with the followin
