On 2011-06-05, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philip Olson <phi...@roshambo.org> wrote: > >>> I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions >>> happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about >>> release process, let adopt it already!) and move on with 5.4. >> >> >> This is a prime example of what we're talking about. Several have expressed >> a desire to follow an Ubuntu style of branching instead of the style >> proposed in said RFC. This is a core issue, so the RFC is certainly not >> ready to adopt. >> >> So does this require a new RFC, or do the RFC proposers feel this is a key >> concept? > > As I stated before, there is a RFC with a fair amount of developers > involved. Some of the supporters of the Ubuntu TLS model already > changed their mind (as it clearly does not work for php, random > features being TLS just because of the timing makes no sense). If you > think a RFC is not ready, not desired, not good enough or whatever > other reason motivates you, vote against and propose something else. > But you can even say no and propose nothing afterwards. I agree. People should stick to the RFC system to hve a documented way of saying what they like and what not. If the RFC writers want to adopt a change that's their things. So far there is no reason to change it.
> As of this specific RFC, it is actually a very good one, it is not > perfect and will need adjustement in the coming years, that's a damned > sure thing. But we can not argue forever only because a minority > thinks we should argue endlessly or change nothing. Yes. The Release RFC is nothing that needs Backward compatbility. We should vote on the general direction instead of fighting over a minor details and getting nothing done. Details can be modified with later RFCs. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
