[PSR-6] Back to Review Status

[Larry Garfield]

Effective 2 February 2015 I hereby push the PSR-6 Caching proposal back
to Review status and turn it over to Paddy for finalization and, as
appropriate, final approval voting

The spec and meta doc can be found here:

https://github.com/php-fig/psr-6/blob/cache/proposed/cache.md
https://github.com/php-fig/psr-6/blob/cache/proposed/cache-meta.md

All yours, Paddy. :-)

--Larry Garfield

[Paul Dragoonis]

Hi Larry,

It's been months since you had the proposal pulled back from review, we cannot push it for review without a team agreement.

I'd like for us, as a team, give things a once-over as a group and then taking the plunge, rather then pushing it up after months of stagnation.

• Points that have came up: Key-Value stuff? Does it have merit in the current implementation?
  
• Expiration changes: expiresAt() and so on - bring this discussion up again.
  
• Webmozart has raised some suggestions on naming consistency.
  

Many thanks,

Paul

--Larry Garfield

--
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+unsubscribe@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/54CF2A43.2020905%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Paul Dragoonis]

Hi Larry,

What I was trying to say, here goes a second time, was rather than making a decision off your own back, it would be appreciated if you consulted with the rest of the team to see if there's any objections for you bringing things to review. 

Things to consider before giving to go-ahead are:

• are there any outstanding potential issues raised by the community?
  
  
• Webmozart on naming consistency - we need to identify the merit in his suggestions and decide if it's worth incorporating his suggestions into the proposal
  
  
• Key-Value had to have come up for a real reason, what was it? What could we incorporate from the KV stuff into our proposal, if anything, that'd make things simpler?

There's more - but you get the point.

As Editor can you kick these things off an ensure we do a thorough analysis of the landscape before things went stagnant, to ensure we're not missing anything.

Many thanks,

Paul

[Pádraic Brady]

For the avoidance of doubt, PSR-6 remains at draft status.

Any move to review requires both the Editor and Coordinator's
agreement. I'll Larry's email as an open permission to move to review
at my discretion. I will move it to review once the final batch of
changes have a bit of airing period, and once I'm advised as to what
state the K/V store PSR must be in to allow certain voters to go +1 so
the PSR has the best chance of passing. I also need to review both
documents which I'll do tomorrow.

So what I'm saying is, the next week or two would be great timing for
any final concerns to be aired and dealt with ;).

Paddy

>>> 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/54CF2A43.2020905%40garfieldtech.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>

--

--
Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.survivethedeepend.com
Zend Framework Community Review Team
Zend Framework PHP-FIG Representative

[Pádraic Brady]

Could I also confirm who Sponsor #2 is so I can get their agreement
for review status? It was John Mertic.

Paddy

[Paul Dragoonis]

Robert stepped up for this. Ask him again

[Pádraic Brady]

Ah, excellent!

Robert, I'll drop you a line privately before doing anything definitive.

Paddy

[Robert Hafner]

To be clear about the sponsorship question-

SugarCRM was the previous sponsor, and for all we know they still are- at no point did they drop that. However, they did switch coordinators. In theory they are still the sponsors, as this group invites projects, not people, and those people represent a project and not themselves.

If SugarCRM decides to change their sponsorship status then there are numerous projects who have volunteered. Stash is one of those projects, and probably the easiest to transition over to if needed. If you want to reach out to the SugarCRM rep and confirm their status I’d appreciate it, and if the current rep has too much on his plate Stash will be happy to sponsor.

Rob

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CALwr1G%3DQ3Ky3M_UFXhbDHOAxSJv4XDE4xp1JUyEu%2BOFU8sTT8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Filipe Guerra]

Hi guys,

Sorry for the late reply on this.

Our team have been too busy lately to give any input on this.

We do not want to be a blocker for the PSR-6, specially because we are looking forward on having this PSR-6 approved and implement our cache mechanism in line with this.

Therefore, if Stash would like to be the sponsor #2 and can accelerate the process to roll out PSR-6, then I'm all for it.

Please reach out directly if you wish to proceed with this switch.

Regards,

Filipe Guerra