RE: [PHP-DEV] RE: High resolution timer function

Hi Rasmus, > -----Original Message----- > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com] > Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 5:42 PM > To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: High resolution timer function > > Definitely. Small, uncontroversial changes have never required an RFC. > Let's not add process just for the sake of process. > That was my premise, too, similar to what Rowan's second mail expressed. I myself didn't think it would be something big to vote, just to make lists aware. The PHP interface might be a subject to nitpick, but otherwise it's a long requested feature. I'm still to the QA of the patch, the PHP interface is still choosable of course, the functionality itself is to the big part ready. Thanks. Anatol > -Rasmus > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 5 January 2018 at 10:38, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote: > > > > > On 2 January 2018 at 13:55, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is this bypassing the RFC process? > > > > > > That's a very good question. > > > > > > Although I'm pretty sure an RFC for this would pass unanimously, stuff > > > should have to go through voting rather than relying on no-one > > > shouting loudly enough. > > > > > > > > > Just as a counter-point to this, I understand that many (Westminster > > style?) parliaments have mechanisms to skip uncontroversial votes by first > > requiring a show of hands or voices, and only "dividing the house" (making > > everyone get up and register their formal votes) if there is dissent. > > > > I think Anatol's intent here is similar: if anyone says "Nay", we can > > proceed with an RFC and vote; but if it's already unanimous, why spend the > > time, when we could be moving onto other business? > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Rowan Collins > > [IMSoP] > >