"Stanislav Malyshev" wrote in message news:54c533a4.3090...@gmail.com...
Hi!
2) I don't see a flood of people coming to the mailing list complaining
about this feature, so I'm not compelled to want it in the language.
That's true for most features, and that's normal - in fact, I can't
remem
> De : Dan Ackroyd [mailto:dan...@basereality.com]
>
> However I think there is a strong risk of people having to give a
> reason why they voted no being abused, particularly if it is shown
> while the voting was taking place, as people could be harassed for
> choosing an 'invalid' reason to reject
Hi!
> It was a fairly simple proposed change with a well-defined set of
> impacted change; what diversity of disagreement do you expect?
I've already have a number of reasons I haven't heard before, or didn't
know their relative importance to people. I think hearing people out -
not necessarily a
Hi!
> 2) I don't see a flood of people coming to the mailing list complaining
> about this feature, so I'm not compelled to want it in the language.
That's true for most features, and that's normal - in fact, I can't
remember a feature or a fix where we had a flood of people coming to the
list.
On 25 January 2015 at 15:44, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On 25 January 2015 at 11:26, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> > That's what the mailing list threads are for, right?
>
>
> If someone has already said a reason on the list for why an RFC should
> be voted no, when someone else agrees with that reason it's
On 25 January 2015 at 11:26, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> That's what the mailing list threads are for, right?
If someone has already said a reason on the list for why an RFC should
be voted no, when someone else agrees with that reason it's not common
for them to email, as it could be viewed as gener
On 25 January 2015 at 08:07, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I am a bit disappointed by the result, as I think it would be a good
> change, but I am much more disappointed by the fact that that 20 people
> voted against it and not even half of them - I would say maybe 1/5 of
> them - chose to particip
On 25 January 2015 at 10:52, Paul Dragoonis wrote:
> Hi Stas,
>
> Maybe a cool wiki feature addition is: once people vote they could
> optionally leave a comment right there on the wiki, which we could collect
> and read. Thoughts?
>
That's what the mailing list threads are for, right? In the m
> I am a bit disappointed by the result, as I think it would be a good
> change, but I am much more disappointed by the fact that that 20 people
> voted against it and not even half of them - I would say maybe 1/5 of
> them - chose to participate in discussion even minimally and explain
> what is w
Hi Stas,
Maybe a cool wiki feature addition is: once people vote they could
optionally leave a comment right there on the wiki, which we could collect
and read. Thoughts?
Here's my feedback for you on why i voted No.
1) It felt a bit too "magic" for me, with no real gain from an internal or
user
On 25/01/15 08:07, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I think not bothering to
> discuss and then just voting "no" with no explanation is not how the
> healthy RFC process should be working.
One thought I had was 'Why would I be adding a constructor is the parent
did not require one?' Personally I would
Hi all,
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> On 25/01/2015 09:07, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
>> I am a bit disappointed by the result, as I think it would be a good
>> change, but I am much more disappointed by the fact that that 20 people
>> voted against it and not even ha
Hi Stas,
On 25/01/2015 09:07, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I am a bit disappointed by the result, as I think it would be a good
change, but I am much more disappointed by the fact that that 20 people
voted against it and not even half of them - I would say maybe 1/5 of
them - chose to participate i
13 matches
Mail list logo
