Re: [VOTE] [RFC] IntlRelativeDateTimeFormatter

Hi, > It's debatable if the latest changes in response to my email constitute  > a major or a minor change regarding the cooldown. However there was also  > no email that changes *were* made to the RFC text (only that some were  > *planned*), which is why I didn't recheck the RFC before the vote - and  > the intent to vote expired. I think you've read the RFC further after my latest response regarding your suggestions. And I think you have no further issues with it because you don't send more email to the thread. Maybe I don't have the English skill to make it clear about what is planned and made. Given this misunderstanding yes I will threat this as a major change and revert the voting process. > Content-wise I also don't agree with the decision to keep using untyped  > constants instead of enums, but didn't have the time to actually think  > this through or read the RFC in-depth. I have discussed this with David in the discussion thread. We all agree on this. However, using untyped constants is a convention to the extension. Every other classes in the extension don't use enums. I'd suggest to add this in the future scope so a extension-wide RFC can revisit this topic later. I don't want to make this new class special to others at the sake of consistency. Further, using namespaces is also preferred here. > For these reasons I voted against the RFC. Please let me know if you have further suggestions. After resolving it, I will announce the cooldown period again. There is no need to rush anyways :) Weilin Du