Am 03.08.2022 um 16:55 schrieb Larry Garfield:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022, at 6:56 AM, Vincent de Lau wrote:
The bylaws are not very clear on this, but I would think an Implicit
Approval would be sufficient here. My interpretation would be that a
1.0.0 release would require an Approval Vote, so there is enough room
to intervene before publishing a 1.0.0 release.
While on the subject of renaming, it seems to me that this package
should use the vendor `fig` instead of `psr`. Similarly, it should use
the `Fig` namespace instead the `Psr`. See
https://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/psr-naming-conventions/. If you feel
there is sufficient reason to keep these, I would think it would be
wise to seek Implicit Approval as well, or leave it to the Approval
Vote.
Regards,
Vincent de Lau
PHP-FIG Secretary
Uitl packages and any other aux resources are required to use a Fig namespace:
https://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/psr-naming-conventions/
No vote needed, that's just what is required.
Since this is a test-only package, I'd probably say log-test rather than
log-util-test, but that's not a hill I'd die on. I am also OK with Implicit
Approval. (So, I guess this is automatically approved unless someone from the
CC asks for a vote within the next week.)
--Larry Garfield
I'm fine with either fig/log-util-test or fig/log-test. The latter is
shorter but still descriptive.
So after the waiting threshold we would need somebody with sufficient
access to the github organisation to rename the package - I can do the
composer metadata changes as required asap afterwards.
--
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/063d72c3-4287-f364-0f0e-a7c12d9421b5%40gmail.com.
