Re: Add a constant to reflect --with-curlwrappers

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Hannes Magnusson < hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Laruence <laruence@php.net> wrote: > > > > >> however, you are right, it's not a long time, so if objections > becomes > >> strong, I can revert it. > >> > > > > this is exactly the kind of behavior why we changed from the commit first > > then revert when people complaining to the current approach, where we try > > to reach a concensus (via discussion on the mailing list or voting > through > > RFCs) before introducing a change. > > > I've gotta say, even though I disagree with the commit, writing an RFC > for a new constant is a total WTF. > There is absolutely no need for a RFC for it. > Heck, even that initial curtesy mail was more then I would have expected. > > > > -Hannes > I agree that not every small change requires an RFC (albeit a small change for one can seem a huge change for another) and I think that this is what I wrote originally. I'm glad that Laruence sent the original mail, I just wish that he would have waited another day or two before the commit. My reply was meant to address why it is a bad idea to shrug off the concerns and say that we can revert it later if the complains doesn't stop. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu