RE: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
| From: | Zeev Suraski | Date: | Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:55:24 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-83619@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rowan Collins [mailto:rowan.collins@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:48 AM
> To: Pierre Joye; Anthony Ferrara
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
>
> On 22 February 2015 23:56:18 GMT, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Can you all of you stop this madness with moving discussions off list?
> >
> >It is detestable, against almost all openness and principles behind an
> >oss project like php. If we can't discuss anymore design, plans, ideas
> >etc on the list then we are doomed, for good.
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. This list is extremely high traffic at
> the
> moment, and the idea that recording every word of every discussion is the
> be
> all and end all of an open project is nonsense. Just as the entire list
> doesn't
> need to hear every word you say to your rubber duck, it doesn't need to
> see
> every quickfire thought of a collaboration or personal debate. Saying "I
> was
> just chatting to X about..." isn't that far removed from "I was just
> thinking
> about..."
>
> Now, that's not to say that people should disappear off into private
> discussion for weeks and emerge with a polished product; clearly,
> important
> points need to be brought to the list promptly, and extra views solicited.
> And
> if the intention of going off-list was to hide a discussion from other
> participants, that is wrong. But I see no evidence of either fault here.
>
> It seems to me perfectly desirable for people to go away and hash a few
> things out over a whiteboard or a beer, virtual or otherwise, then present
> a
> full and prompt summary to the wider community. Done right, it actually
> gives a *better* chance for other participants to follow the discussion,
> because they don't have to devote hours to reading every word, but are
> instead alerted to salient points they might want to think about and
> respond
> to further.
I literally couldn't have put it better myself. Wholeheartedly agree.
Zeev