Hey Dan.
I do appriciate to hear your point of view. This thread is now very off-topic.
With respect to Marco and other people that wants to discuss guidelines for the
RFCs and the role of RMs, I will not answer you anymore.
Feel free to reach out to me privately or in a new thread.
// Tobia
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 19:11, Tobias Nyholm wrote:
> Hey Dan.
>
> I see that you read what I wrote and intrepid it in the worst possible way.
This is also passive aggressive phrasing. You're trying to make me
feel bad for pointing out how your phrasing is not conducive to a
pleasant productive co
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021, 12:39 AM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 at 20:02, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >
> > good evening Dan,
> >
> > First of all, could you please not merge many different mails in one
> single reply? Thanks.
>
> No. This is a mailing list, where conversations get spread over
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 11:11 AM Tobias Nyholm
wrote:
>
> But I do agree with you. The process would have been way better if they
> said “no". Or if they clearly and unanimously said “yes” which would remove
> focus on “it feels rushed” and “we can’t because of feature freeze”.
> This is the the
Tobias Nyholm wrote on 8/27/21 13:11:
>>> one way of reading this proposal is that we don’t trust the release
>>> managers to decide what to include and not to include in a release.
>>
>> To be clear, I don't trust release managers to decide that. Though
>> they are all lovely people, not all of t
Hey Dan.
I see that you read what I wrote and intrepid it in the worst possible way. I
will try to be more clear and more carefully chose my words in the future.
I called it an “obvious mistake” because it was clear to me that we missed
something. We are not bad people or worse developers beca
Tobias wrote:
> I know you are not a bad person...
>
> The fact that you unprompted (as far as I can tell) decided to in
> detail specify how RMs should make their decision about an RFC is
> giving me a strong signal that you don’t trust the role of the Release
> Manager. The timing of your RFC is
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 at 20:02, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> good evening Dan,
>
> First of all, could you please not merge many different mails in one single
> reply? Thanks.
No. This is a mailing list, where conversations get spread over
different forks of threads.
When a reply is relevant to multip
Hello,
One question I have (as I always do) regarding nullable intersection types,
(which is a forbidden topic and I know I shouldn't bring it up).
I'd love to know how `Consistency` plays a role in new RFCs.
Are we striving for consistency?
Is it a value here?
Or simply it is a side effect?
We s
Hi.
I read the requirements to ask for a feature. I have been following your
list. Interesting. I just want to do this
https://web.dev/fetch-upload-streaming/,
https://glitch.com/edit/#!/fetch-request-stream.
This works as expected with a Blob or File:
fetch('index.php', {
headers: { 'Conten
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 1:09 AM Derick Rethans wrote:
> On 25 August 2021 18:34:18 BST, Nicolas Grekas <
> nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Le mer. 25 août 2021 à 19:32, Marco Pivetta a écrit
> :
> ,
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:30 PM Nicolas Grekas <
> >> nicolas.grekas+...@gmai
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:25 PM Ben Ramsey wrote:
> Deleu wrote on 8/24/21 13:53:
> > The proposal is rooted in making it easier for release managers and rfc
> > authors to refine code changes that may or may not be necessary to
> > accomplish a previously approved RFC.
>
> I don't understand ho
Deleu wrote on 8/24/21 13:53:
> The proposal is rooted in making it easier for release managers and rfc
> authors to refine code changes that may or may not be necessary to
> accomplish a previously approved RFC.
I don't understand how this proposal helps with this. If changes are
necessary to acc
Nicolas Grekas wrote on 8/25/21 12:29:
> I would welcome a new RFC to clarify what is allowed during the feature
> freeze.
As Derick mentioned in another post (by essentially quoting the
Wikipedia entry for "Feature freeze"), this period is a well-understood
phase of software development. We use
Deleu wrote on 8/25/21 14:35:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 8:52 PM Ben Ramsey wrote:
>> I would be in favor of an "informational" RFC rather than a "policy"
>> RFC. An informational RFC can define terms, such as "refinement RFC" and
>> "feature freeze," without burdening the project with more policy
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 9:00 PM Ben Ramsey wrote:
> Derick Rethans wrote on 8/24/21 12:35:
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote:
> >
> >> In order to not be empty-handed, I started a gist that can be seen as
> >> the starting point for this discussion, available at
> >> https://gist.github.com/de
Derick Rethans wrote on 8/24/21 12:35:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote:
>
>> In order to not be empty-handed, I started a gist that can be seen as
>> the starting point for this discussion, available at
>> https://gist.github.com/deleugpn/9d0e285f13f0b4fdcfc1d650b20c3105.
>
> 4. A Refinement
Sara Golemon wrote on 8/24/21 14:29:
> Agreed, and I would say that we DO have a policy. The policy is that the
> RMs make a judgement call in the moment. I still think the attributes
> syntax was appropriate to make an exception for (given it was a new feature
> and this would be our last chance
On 25 August 2021 17:58:55 BST, Nicolas Grekas
wrote:
>Le mar. 24 août 2021 à 21:09, Derick Rethans a écrit :
>
>> On 24 August 2021 19:53:57 BST, Deleu wrote:
>> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 19:28 Derick Rethans wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > We recently had the N
On 25 August 2021 18:34:18 BST, Nicolas Grekas
wrote:
>Le mer. 25 août 2021 à 19:32, Marco Pivetta a écrit :
,
>
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:30 PM Nicolas Grekas <
>> nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would welcome a new RFC to clarify what is allowed during the feature
>>> freeze.
Le mer. 25 août 2021 à 19:32, Marco Pivetta a écrit :
> Hey Nicolas,
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:30 PM Nicolas Grekas <
> nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would welcome a new RFC to clarify what is allowed during the feature
>> freeze.
>>
>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freez
Hey Nicolas,
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:30 PM Nicolas Grekas
wrote:
> I would welcome a new RFC to clarify what is allowed during the feature
> freeze.
>
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeze_(software_engineering)
Greets,
Marco Pivetta
http://twitter.com/Ocramius
http://ocramius.github.
Le mar. 24 août 2021 à 08:09, Pierre Joye a écrit :
> Hi Marco,
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 3:49 AM Deleu wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone!
> >
> > We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an
> > unconventional way starting a new RFC post feature freeze. If memory
> serves
> >
Le mar. 24 août 2021 à 21:09, Derick Rethans a écrit :
> On 24 August 2021 19:53:57 BST, Deleu wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 19:28 Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote:
> >>
> >> > We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an
> >> > unconvention
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:15 PM Tobias Nyholm
wrote:
> Hey Marco.
>
> The fact that you unprompted (as far as I can tell) decided to in detail
> specify how RMs should make their decision about an RFC is giving me a
> strong signal that you don’t trust the role of the Release Manager. The
> timi
Hey Marco.
I know you are not a bad person and Im sure your intention is to bring more
clarity and to add something that is helpful.
And to state something I hope is obvious: I am not accusing you for trying to
reduce the role of Release Manager or anything else.
> I'm interested in understa
Derick,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 9:09 PM Derick Rethans wrote:
> That's where I disagree already. The nullable intersections RFC isn't a
> refinement, it's a new feature.
>
And if I had voting powers, that would be exactly my reasoning for voting
no: "Not a Refinement RFC". However, whether a Re
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 5:57 PM Tobias Nyholm
wrote:
>
> Situations like this often requires a judgement call rather than something
> that could be defined as a policy.
> I suggest the release managers always should be in agreement before a RFC
> is created during a “feature freeze”. If the relea
On 24 August 2021 19:53:57 BST, Deleu wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 19:28 Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote:
>>
>> > We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an
>> > unconventional way starting a new RFC post feature freeze. If memory
>> > serves me
good evening Dan,
First of all, could you please not merge many different mails in one
single reply? Thanks.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021, 1:43 AM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
> > Many additions went through while being incomplete.
> >
> For almost all recent RFCS
> > related to syntax, a
> Tobias Nyholm wrote:
>> then the discussion and the vote should not consider “if it is too late”
>> or “this is rushed”.
>
> This is a really bad idea. Previously (but not recently), some of the
> more heated RFC discussions moved from being about the RFC to being
> about what are "right" and
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 19:28 Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote:
>
> > We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an
> > unconventional way starting a new RFC post feature freeze. If memory
> > serves me right, another similar incident happened with the At
Pierre Joye wrote:
> Many additions went through while being incomplete.
> ...
> For almost all recent RFCS
> related to syntax, arguments/return types or properties, I don't think
> it justifies being added while being incomplete.
I think you are remembering how changes were made to PHP through r
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote:
> In order to not be empty-handed, I started a gist that can be seen as
> the starting point for this discussion, available at
> https://gist.github.com/deleugpn/9d0e285f13f0b4fdcfc1d650b20c3105.
4. A Refinement RFC MAY be proposed with a schedule for ending it
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote:
> We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an
> unconventional way starting a new RFC post feature freeze. If memory
> serves me right, another similar incident happened with the Attributes
> RFC which had a syntax that could not be implem
>
> Situations like this often requires a judgement call rather than something
> that could be defined as a policy.
> I suggest the release managers always should be in agreement before a RFC
> is created during a “feature freeze”. If the release managers agree that a
> change can be added, then th
Hi Jordan,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 4:55 PM Jordan LeDoux wrote:
> 1. Are too large or complex for voters to make an informed decision about.
This is the real problem. Also you are correct on the cause
(complexity of a topic), I don't think we are not able to understand
complex RFCs.
> 2. Inclu
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:09 PM Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> Many additions went through while being incomplete. It was documented
> so in the RFC but it does not make it a good thing. Many of them are
> indeed much needed and related to features (some) PHP users have been
> waiting for. Are they crit
Hi Marco,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 3:49 AM Deleu wrote:
>
> Hello everyone!
>
> We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an
> unconventional way starting a new RFC post feature freeze. If memory serves
> me right, another similar incident happened with the Attributes RFC whic
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, 4:27 am Tobias Nyholm, wrote:
> Thank you.
> I appriciate you bring up this issue.
>
> Situations like this often requires a judgement call rather than something
> that could be defined as a policy.
> I suggest the release managers always should be in agreement before a RFC
>
Thank you.
I appriciate you bring up this issue.
Situations like this often requires a judgement call rather than something that
could be defined as a policy.
I suggest the release managers always should be in agreement before a RFC is
created during a “feature freeze”. If the release manager
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 23:07 Gabriel Caruso,
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 22:49 Deleu, wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an
>> unconventional way starting a new RFC post feature freeze. If memory
>> serves
>> me right, another similar
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 22:49 Deleu, wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an
> unconventional way starting a new RFC post feature freeze. If memory serves
> me right, another similar incident happened with the Attributes RFC which
> had a syntax
43 matches
Mail list logo
