Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52977 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 95932 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2011 21:43:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Jun 2011 21:43:19 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.211.68 unknown Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:43:18 -0400 Received: from [217.114.211.68] ([217.114.211.68:17318] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 33/83-26000-678FBED4 for ; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:43:18 -0400 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <4DE7F179.5010402@sugarcrm.com> <4DE89534.5070206@sugarcrm.com> <4DE89CD2.4040302@sugarcrm.com> <4DE9AA9B.3000108@sugarcrm.com> User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (SunOS) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: X-Posted-By: 217.114.211.68 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward) From: dsp@php.net (David Soria Parra) On 2011-06-05, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philip Olson 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.