Re: [PEPr] -1 for RFC::Error Handling Guidelines for

Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:27:35 -0700 papercrane@gmail.com (Justin Patrin) wrote:

There was nearly no discussion of this for at least a week. Then the RFC was submitted and a few comments were made and addressed. Again, I'd like to ask *why* this discussion is happening now that the RFC has entered voting. Everything that is being brought up now was brought up, discussed, and dealt with before the RFC was even made a proposal in Pepr. The wiki was around for a week or two before that. Have any of you checked the archives to see how this was all discussed before?

1. One or two weeks in summer times (or even not) is nothing :)

I'm sick of this argument. Its unfounded, so please stop repeating it in the hope it rings true after some time. Searching my basement archives: The call for review was issued in the beggining of August (almost a month ago!): http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=109174898819942&w=3 The call for participation on the wiki was on the first week of July: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=108930240031446&w=3 The document, AFAIRemember grew from Hans' idea in this post (June,21st): http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=108782603118151&w=3 The original post on that thread is dated 20th of June, by Thomas V. Cox, annoucing the presence of PEAR_Exception in CVS. Discussion about exception usage abounded, that month, and was used as the original base for the wiki page. Hardly "one or two weeks". Cheers, Sérgio Carvalho

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc