On 23 Sep 2014, at 16:57, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> yeah, and when there is like 12 minutes between the last required vote casted
> and the vote being casted(almost a day earlier), it is easy to jump to
> conclusions.
The vote closing soon after the last vote was not a coincidence, but it’s the
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I didn’t close it because the time suited me most. I made an honest
> > mistake and closed it 22 or so hours early because I forgot I’d
> > opened the vote at ~23:00 and not ~02:00. Unfortunately, I realised
> > my mistake after m
Hi!
> I didn’t close it because the time suited me most. I made an honest
> mistake and closed it 22 or so hours early because I forgot I’d
> opened the vote at ~23:00 and not ~02:00. Unfortunately, I realised
> my mistake after merging the patch. This was definitely not
> intentional.
That's why
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2014 10:05 PM, "Levi Morrison" wrote:
>
> > I don't want to say anything else here, as technically this is thread
> hijacking (sorry Andrea) but I am very interested in collaborating with
> anyone who would like to try to improv
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2014 3:31 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
> >
> > > On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I would
Hi,
Just a side remark: from an external point of view, it seems like you need
an application to handle the RFCs. An application with a strict business
logic, which leaves no ambiguity as to when and how an RFC should be valid.
The "what" is more ambiguous however, and I'm not sure as to how it s
On Sep 22, 2014 10:05 PM, "Levi Morrison" wrote:
> I don't want to say anything else here, as technically this is thread
hijacking (sorry Andrea) but I am very interested in collaborating with
anyone who would like to try to improve the RFC process. Perhaps reply to
me off-list if you are also in
On Sep 22, 2014 3:31 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> > On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > >
> > >> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
> > >> "50%
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >
> > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> >> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
> >> "50% majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds
> >> *majo
On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
>> "50% majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds
>> *majority*. The RFC, like with many other important things is of
>
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a "50%
> majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds *majority*. The
> RFC, like with many other important things is of course too vague on
> this.
An 8:8 vote is not a
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> On 22 September 2014 10:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their
> > > votes so that the tally is in you favour is inexcusable.
>
On 22 September 2014 11:10, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> If we’re going to reopen or restart, I’d prefer to completely restart it than
> to just reopen it. A clean slate.
Most of the issues I saw raised were related to one half of the RFC,
the shifts or the casts, perhaps you'd make better headway s
On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:36, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> WTF is going on here? Looks like the vote was closed nearly 24 hours
> early on a weekend. While the latter is not nice, closing early is a
> no-go. So what are we going to do? Reopen the vote for another day or
> completely restart it?
If w
On 22/09/14 10:42, Pierre Joye wrote:
> This is getting really annoying. 2nd or 3rd time it happens, between
> people changing contents during votes, closing too early, too late,
> asking to change votes, etc.
At a very least a vote should not end until at least 7 days after the
last change to the
On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:46, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> ask people to vote yes, close the vote immeditely once it reach the
> 2/3 requirement..
>
> it's not cool, and it's not about RFC process... it's about manner…
I didn’t close it because it reached the 2/3 requirement. I was lucky that one
more
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
>
> On 22 September 2014 10:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their votes so
>> > that the tally is in you favour is
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> WTF is going on here? Looks like the vote was closed nearly 24 hours
> early on a weekend. While the latter is not nice, closing early is a
> no-go. So what are we going to do? Reopen the vote for another day or
> completely restart it?
On 22 September 2014 10:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn
> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their votes so
> > that the tally is in you favour is inexcusable.
>
> did I miss something? What is this "request to remo
WTF is going on here? Looks like the vote was closed nearly 24 hours
early on a weekend. While the latter is not nice, closing early is a
no-go. So what are we going to do? Reopen the vote for another day or
completely restart it?
--
Regards,
Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mai
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
> If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their votes so
> that the tally is in you favour is inexcusable.
did I miss something? What is this "request to remove votes" thing?
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.o
On Monday, 22 September 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 21 Sep 2014, at 22:49, Peter Cowburn > wrote:
>
> > It is closed now.
> >
> > The vote is closed now, fact. That does not prevent further (hopefully
> productive) discussion from happening, and it also doesn’t stipulate that
> the RFC mu
On 21 Sep 2014, at 22:49, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> It is closed now.
>
> The vote is closed now, fact. That does not prevent further (hopefully
> productive) discussion from happening, and it also doesn’t stipulate that the
> RFC must be merged.
The RFC is merged. I suppose you could revert
On 21 September 2014 04:53, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2014 10:48 AM, "Xinchen Hui" wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Pierre Joye
> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > On Sep 21, 2014 10:08 AM, "Xinchen Hui" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
On Sep 21, 2014 10:48 AM, "Xinchen Hui" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Pierre Joye
wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Sep 21, 2014 10:08 AM, "Xinchen Hui" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 21 Sep 2014, at 03:52, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> >> >
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sep 21, 2014 10:08 AM, "Xinchen Hui" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 21 Sep 2014, at 03:52, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hey:
>> >>
>> >> it should be closed tomorrow, not today.
Hi,
On Sep 21, 2014 10:08 AM, "Xinchen Hui" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> >
> >> On 21 Sep 2014, at 03:52, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey:
> >>
> >> it should be closed tomorrow, not today.
> >
> > It's the 21st in my timezone. I started the vote at 2am on
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
>> On 21 Sep 2014, at 03:52, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>>
>> Hey:
>>
>> it should be closed tomorrow, not today.
>
> It's the 21st in my timezone. I started the vote at 2am on the 14th and it's
> now 4am on the 21st. I don't see a problem.
the p
> On 21 Sep 2014, at 03:52, Xinchen Hui wrote:
>
> Hey:
>
> it should be closed tomorrow, not today.
It's the 21st in my timezone. I started the vote at 2am on the 14th and it's
now 4am on the 21st. I don't see a problem.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developm
Hey:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 14 Sep 2014, at 23:23, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
>> Good evening,
>>
>> This RFC has been put to a vote. It starts today (2014-09-14) and ends in a
>> week’s time (2014-09-21).
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/integer_semantics#vote
>
On 14 Sep 2014, at 23:23, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> This RFC has been put to a vote. It starts today (2014-09-14) and ends in a
> week’s time (2014-09-21).
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/integer_semantics#vote
>
> Thanks!
The vote has now closed. The result was 16:8 Yes:No, whi
Why don't you throw an exception instead of returning random things that
are not accurate?
It makes the response of the operation or casts more realistic, since you
will never get INF or NAN as result and possibly transform it to 0
unconsciously. It will keep the semantic for expected types, for e
On 15/09/2014 00:23, Andrea Faulds wrote:
This RFC has been put to a vote. It starts today (2014-09-14) and ends in a
week’s time (2014-09-21).
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/integer_semantics#vote
Hi,
After discussing this RFC with other members of AFUP (French UG), we
agree that improving cross
On 16 Sep 2014, at 11:19, Chris Wright wrote:
> On 16 September 2014 11:05, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> you already made silent break for N << 64 and N >> 64, but it may be
>> explained as more consistent behaviour.
>> I don't see a big difference with negative shifts.
>>
>> The real thing that I
On 16 September 2014 11:05, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> you already made silent break for N << 64 and N >> 64, but it may be
> explained as more consistent behaviour.
> I don't see a big difference with negative shifts.
>
> The real thing that I don't like - is a "boolean" result. Warning is not a
> bi
you already made silent break for N << 64 and N >> 64, but it may be
explained as more consistent behaviour.
I don't see a big difference with negative shifts.
The real thing that I don't like - is a "boolean" result. Warning is not a
big problem.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:23 P
On 16 Sep 2014, at 10:16, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Shifts by negative number may make sense. (N << -1) => (N >> 1)
> At least receiving "false" from shift is not very pleasant.
The problem is that changing from the current behaviour (undefined in C, but
typically a shift by (PHP_INT_MAX - $bits)
Hi Andrea,
Shifts by negative number may make sense. (N << -1) => (N >> 1)
At least receiving "false" from shift is not very pleasant.
In the patch you use SIZEOF_LONG. It probably should be changed to
SIZEOF_ZEND_LONG.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
On 15 Sep 2014, at 17:24, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> This RFC has been put to a vote. It starts today (2014-09-14) and ends in a
>> week’s time (2014-09-21).
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/integer_semantics#vote
>
> A few people have asked why I voted no; the only reason is that
> division by ze
> This RFC has been put to a vote. It starts today (2014-09-14) and ends in a
> week’s time (2014-09-21).
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/integer_semantics#vote
A few people have asked why I voted no; the only reason is that
division by zero will return `false` and emit a warning. Integers can
be co
40 matches
Mail list logo
