Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121665 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45285 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2023 14:33:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2023 14:33:27 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DC5180548 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 06:33:26 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_NEUTRAL,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS30827 82.113.144.0/20 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from xdebug.org (xdebug.org [82.113.146.227]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 06:33:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [148.252.128.122]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9F7810C1C7; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 14:33:25 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 14:33:22 +0000 To: internals@lists.php.net User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C8272C8-8735-463C-9694-697859CAAFE9@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Release cycle update From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On 10 November 2023 23:27:35 GMT, Rowan Tommins wrote: >On 10 November 2023 16:51:57 GMT, Jakub Zelenka wrote: >>Hello, >> >>I would like to propose a new process RFC for updates to PHP release cyc= le: >> >>https://wiki=2Ephp=2Enet/rfc/release_cycle_update > >Hi, > >I started writing a suggestion that you add details to your RFC of what t= ext we would remove or change in the existing policy if approved - what you= 've presented so far is like a good commit message, but we probably want a = diff to go with it=2E > >However, looking at the existing "policy", most of the things you want to= change aren't actually in it - it doesn't even contain the word "beta"=2E = It also has parts that are obviously outdated ("Features can use branch(es)= if necessary" - because the project was using SVN, where branches are cost= ly to maintain), parts in the future tense, and even open questions (about = who can vote for RMs)=2E > >So maybe what's really needed is to draft a new copy of the policy docume= nt, updating or removing those parts that are no longer relevant, and addin= g a timeline for the pre-release phases? > >Or possibly there's a different document I should be looking at, and the = RFC could contain proposed edits to that? > >Regards, > I already have been collecting most of the policy things together in one d= ocument: https://docs=2Egoogle=2Ecom/document/d/1Wc84ZxHHamvWsZl-U2kFOrbJDEXyXFv1la= ePN4ijJGQ/edit?usp=3Ddrivesdk For the same reasons really=2E The info was spread out a lot=2E cheers Derick