[Discuss] [Poll] Errata

[Michael C]

This thread is for discussion of the Errata concept currently being polled.

 

My comment:

It means creating a meta document for PSR-2 though or should we create one with just this section?

 

Thanks,

Michael C

 

From: php...@googlegroups.com [mailto:php...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Phil Sturgeon
Sent: 23 August 2013 19:52
To: php...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Poll] Errata

 

Sorry about another conversation about conversations. I also know you've all been hearing a lot from me recently, but please give this two minutes of your day.

 

We had a big long discussion about amendments, but that is whole mess I do not want to get into. I'd like to see an Errata section added to our new meta docs, as a non-binding way to add clarification to contentious points, especially those which were just down to accidental wording.

 

One [example](https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/issues/61). Muli-line arguments are perceived by some to forcibly trigger 4.6, where you suddenly HAVE to spread all of your arguments in a list onto their own line, just because one of them is.

 

Every major FIG project which calls itself PSR-2 is currently breaking this rule, hundreds of times in their source code.

 

Zend has already defended that this is not a break. Silex has an example on their homepage which breaks PSR-2 according to CS.

 

As you can see in the link above Greg Sherwood (a CodeSniffer dev) thinks it does, and there is a deadlock. Unless we add Errata we have no official way of clarifying this misunderstanding without opening a hornets nest of amendments or making new PSRs. I do not want this.

 

How about adding a new section to the Meta Document, like:

 

Errata

 

          #1 - 08/23/2013 - Using multi-line arguments lines does not constitute splitting the argument list, and therefore Section 4.6 is not automatically enforced. Arrays and callbacks are able to span multiple lines while other arguments do not. 

 

Example: 

 

$app->get('/hello/{name}', function($name) use($app) { 

    return 'Hello '.$app->escape($name); 

});  

          

 

If you think adding non-binding Errata to the Meta Doc makes sense, on the basis that a vote happens for each amendment to the meta doc, then +1 this poll. This is just a poll to see if people like the idea and have some feedback. 

 

We can change the wording, and I'll make a PR, add a meta doc for PSR-2 and all that junk, if people like this general idea.

 

Because right now, everyone using CodeSniffer HATES PSR-2 over something that is not actually a PSR-2 rule. That is dangerous and damaging to the entire community, and means we look like we are currently not complying with our own standards.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/a9c01637-f446-493a-b1c7-a25173cc9c3c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Phil Sturgeon]

On Friday, 23 August 2013 15:16:03 UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:

It means creating a meta document for PSR-2 though or should we create one with just this section? 

Thanks,

Michael C

We would need to make one yes.

It would be empty other than the Errata, as it didn't have an Editor/Sponsors/etc. 

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On Aug 23, 2013, at 21:16 , "Michael C" <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:

> This thread is for discussion of the Errata concept currently being polled.

I generally think that an FAQ/Errata makes sense to clarify language that is in the document not to add additional aspects. Of course this gives the opportunity to split hairs over which ever it is .. but I guess as long as we have a passing vote on this .. we can determine which ever it is with confidence.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
sm...@pooteeweet.org

[Larry Garfield]

I agree. I think the example that Phil posted is a good example. "No
no, it doesn't go THAT far, that rule you think is there isn't really."

As long as all errata go through a vote, I'm comfortable with adding
them to meta docs. We can then add meta docs for the existing PSRs as
needed.

--Larry Garfield

[Michael C]

Phil,

I think the poll has enough backing to submit it for a vote (as that surveys
the members anyway, it's just that doing a poll then vote takes a while)?

Thanks,
Michael C

> -----Original Message-----
> From: php...@googlegroups.com [mailto:php...@googlegroups.com] On

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-

> fig/5217DECF.1000007%40garfieldtech.com.

[guilher...@gmail.com]

+1 from Doctrine

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/!%26!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAIvQc/7y6RDjS4tPy158HbCgAAAEAAAAKzqF8d5Se5IsyzVTihbBykBAAAAAA%3D%3D%40michaelcullum.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilher...@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada

[Phil Sturgeon]

Thanks Michael, it certainly seems to have some support.

The vote will be to accept this change to the workflow bylaw. 

Can anyone think of anything else I'll need to change to make Errata a thing?