On 28/01/15 21:03, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Michael Wallner <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> On 28/01/15 18:58, Levi Morrison wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Levi Morrison <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> >
> > Discussion has been very low on this topic since it was
> proposed on
> > August 19th, so I just opened the vote on the RFC whether
> to add
> > pecl_http to the core. The vote will be open until about 12:00
> > UTC on
> > Friday, February 6th.
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#vote
> >
> >
> > I wish you had pinged the list before opening the vote. I know
> there
> > were a few people who wanted to make comments but have just been
> > very busy. For example, I have been dealing with the return types
> > RFC which has soaked up all of the time I have for working on PHP
> > projects.
> >
> > Some feedback: I feel the RFC is not clear about the
> advantages and
> > disadvantages of including this package. Mostly, the RFC is "hey I
> > have this package can we include it in core?" I feel like it's
> > fairly incomplete as to *why* we should include it. There is a
> fair
> > amount of work done in user-land for these types of utilities,
> and I
> > think without a more balanced discussion we'd be giving this
> > extension a distinct advantage.
> >
> > If we allow it to remain in voting phase despite these issues, I
> > have to vote no simply because I don't feel like there is enough
> > information presented in the RFC for anyone except current
> pecl_http
> > users to make a good decision; that's hardly a good situation for
> > the language as a whole.
> >
> >
> > Oh, one more item: has anyone had time to review the pieces and
> how they
> > all interact, as well as reviewing the quality of each component? I
> > should hardly think in the time given this has been done. I'm not
> saying
> > this extension is bad; I am saying that I don't think there's been
> time
> > for anyone to properly evaluate whether it is or not.
>
> Well, there's been hardly any activity on the RFC for over five months,
> if one didn't have the chance for review in this time frame then the
> topic is probably not interesting enough for her.
>
> But I already guessed, that there wouldn't be a real discussion until I
> slapped the label VOTE on this RFC.
>
>
> I always send an email to the list before putting something to vote to
> gather more feedback. It usually solicits one or two more points of
> discussion. This is not technically a requirement, but if it has has no
> activity for 5 months what are the chances that it is on my mind? (Hint:
> exactly zero)
>
> As an RFC author if you want people to think about your RFC and discuss
> it then on occasion you need to bring it up now and again.
Yep, I re-started discussion on January 22nd. Gathered the same
participants than the first discussion round.
--
Regards,
Mike