Re: [VOTE] Expectations

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote: >> So it is fine to have one setting doing the exact same thing? Sorry, I >> disagree. We know we need that in other areas. Like other recent RFCs, >> we have solved them bottom-up. This one is no different. > > It's fine for an RFC to be focused on one thing. This is another subject. > >> So basically what you say is that this RFC, relying on things we >> should clarify and define clearly so it will be consistent across the >> engine and language, are not relevant to this RFC? I totally disagree >> and hence my point that this RFC needs more (public) discussions and >> things that are prerequisites for this RFC should be designed, >> discussed and implemented before this RFC. > > I'm saying that this isn't a subject for this RFC, deciding if we're going > to have multiple exception trees is simply not in scope. Why I use the word "prerequisite" and not "part of this RFC". >> I will certainly be the only one voting no at this stage, or maybe not >> even voting because I simply feel like you discussed that already no >> matter where and came to this RFC and say take it or leave it. I am >> not a fan of this approach or we can rename "Request For Comments" to >> "Request to Accept" as any kind of comments or feedback is simply not >> taken into accounts. > > I'm sorry that you don't remember the discussion, but it did happen, the > RFC has been in (more or less) it's current form for more than a year. > > The current form *is the result of discussion*. > > Please stop saying it hasn't been discussed, it has, a lot. Some stuff covered by this RFC have part of a bigger discussions about many different things. Did we have a [RFC][Discuss] thread to actually discuss this exact RFC? No, we did not. And it is cruelly needed. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org