Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124877
Message-ID: <a7b4a8be-f8da-4e47-8855-c2cd57993167@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:18:05 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Updates needed to various RFCs
Content-Language: de-DE
To: Juliette Reinders Folmer <php-internals_nospam@adviesenzo.nl>,
 "internals@lists.php.net >> PHP internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <66B854C7.5010904@adviesenzo.nl>
 <068b201a-6fd8-4b54-aa01-a1267a7bd7c3@gmx.de>
 <66B91D4C.7070002@adviesenzo.nl>
In-Reply-To: <66B91D4C.7070002@adviesenzo.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:VRWReIYJcC4=;jGI4kifdbwbnJe6psAMO4e9YzeH
 KmaWOPbW8mO3MXVyszRsRm9koRkN0qBfAkm91Vzw2xnH1RBrJQbBdQCcHZznVt/xGwbCnM+6y
 0mmfQ4qe2G1JL8sZkrhQXYltd2xT1cNzpPitwfd3nI72I0kXh7eloTB7udjYA0QO8DUSFpS1z
 W2PJ+rJ1sr8FVQYL0FLOxmpMaGGEgJishmccNRBvvPVQ5e6NZdIeUTmvsBnWMFXcg5JVGfYE+
 TUVB4JsRwhwe7rxc6InjrnVwWPYJTDNFjC5WjbPL0XRfC8bKQPnP9QBv1U1Xc7Xs20x+QVHa0
 kiHZpbCQt+nERdtbkDqPbqPB3QvaJhO7DBzgDnNjnoYLKsJcShx2fI71CqqytZDKaa3aRrk+r
 N2gvS5VnNW1A2QtUeOK7bzPz5xJStUZmka7TEAn5TJjzMY7EnTCEQr5NE031LxUst62NyjhCF
 xy5CH48BmSyEargBzvlFcmQxh+AhBwzC7V3e9XQ/czB9Bdm72LyApUQ6wkpH3XWmw5GqtoAeD
 Ha8IEIwYDHnOyBPl5R3cMn2pbW5dNaZaugIMmrfB4oX7dNFn3o5stGnI5n54mQmMAtKjYf/JZ
 96qQOb5+F2zdfUGm2AVdBsqgx80zQfQuws34VZMy6NVQXU4H9jruwqVNpNXgIBG74Ar2T/muQ
 UzCzg8pPLS1PnDDF2emSOiOijK2pMS7a0SGC1glolV98yT3lIitOMBk2kQOvhuk1tIYKFxv1s
 5VgwJxRYmmd93ZsJHMSYyRvnX57OGXVQoPZUQJmiXTNgXRgnE7o83QCxE+z7woZnoUQi5EVnc
 8MYAyG73lLOeKFFkqUOd03XGnIqiuWdHqHzjXCYAgPwXQ=
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")

On 11.08.2024 at 22:21, Juliette Reinders Folmer wrote:

> Thanks Christoph! I was tempted to update the RFCs myself, but thought
> it was against protocol for anyone but the RFC owner to do so ? hence my
> email.

Changing an open RFC without consent of the RFC author(s) is certainly
against protocol.  However, in my opinion it is perfectly fine to update
such "meta" information for closed RFCs (i.e. RFCs which have been
implemented or declined or withdrawn).  Especially implemented RFCs
which are linked from UPGRADING *should* be updated in this regard as
soon as possible to avoid readers being confused where to find the
implementation (and such readers might be those who want to write
documentation, and sometimes need to look up the implementation or its
discussion).  And it's equally important to update declined RFCs;
understandably, authors of such RFCs might not want to spend more time
on the gory details of the RFC process. :)

> =C2=A0If you need links to PRs/commits, I've got them, as I've been look=
ing
> them up for the initial PHPCompatibility package updates.

Please feel free to update the necessary information yourself.  Unless
you tick the "minor changes" checkbox (what you probably shouldn't do
for such updates, unless when moving RFCs on the overview page to the
correct sections), a notification is available as public RSS feed, so
everyone can follow this, and going back to an older version of the RFC
would be a matter of a couple of clicks.  And frankly, I don't think an
RFC author would have an issue if somebody else catches up on what they
just might have forgotten.

> For fpow(), these are the relevant ones (and include the fpow() function
> in contrast to the text in the PR description - PR was updated after it
> was originally pulled):

Jorg has updated the RFC in the meantime (thanks!)

Christoph