Re: Allow non-variable arguments to empty()

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote: > Hi! > > > Err isn't this something that should go through the RFC process first? > > I think it's a good idea and I'll probably vote for it, but as I > > understand the RFC process was created specifically for stuff like this. > > One doesn't preclude the other. Pull is code, RFC is discussion, they > can go in parallel. > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > Well, technically it's discussion *and* vote. I know we've been wanting to get out of the habit of "push first, ask later," which is precisely what RFC helps us avoid. Personally, I think any commits for a non-minor change (i.e. a new feature) should be branched and left unmerged until it passes through the RFC voting process. I'm a big fan of consistency over ad hoc processes. ;) --Kris