Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97643
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.170 as permitted sender)
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
References: <CAL=_i_nuF0y8TC_GrWsX5e77sP-jKq+ed374SW0e=VxSPniVjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c935-XMWDeyLEuw-Pr7Njh+Q=ZR7HT+isD9Rry-R-g2uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f432ec0d-1836-1c5c-43d5-455c0257459e@heigl.org>
 <47370a17-d428-b30d-183b-c1ec96d47872@gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_m4zegT41zOKc7+zXYN-487umJ9NKDM0KMKqMZhY81vVw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <8307a455-1f57-b289-74cb-71c3a0410c92@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:19:04 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_m4zegT41zOKc7+zXYN-487umJ9NKDM0KMKqMZhY81vVw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] bugsnet cleanup
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> The problem with accepting feature requests on bugsnet is that, most of
> the time, nobody can implement them because of modern processes.

Why not? One can attach pull or write an RFC based on it. Having ticket
in bugs.php.net does not prevent it, it just records the need for it.

> It's not harmful to us, but it is harmful to the person requesting the
> feature, who is probably ignorant of modern processes, and bound to stay
> that way until we educate them, or disable feature requests on bugsnet
> altogether.

We can add comments to those FRs that require RFCs.

> I think I would like to see feature requests disabled on bugsnet,
> thereby pushing everyone to use the proper channels (github, internals,
> RFC's).

These channels are not exclusive. In fact, bugs site is the only
permanent record for non-RFC requests, and for RFC ones, sometimes
significant time passes between idea showing up and RFC being ready, and
in that time, we won't have any record of anybody needing this.

> What do you think ?

I don't think disabling FRs is good. Screening them and noting that some
of them will need RFCs to be implemented is good.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com