Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85702
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.49 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <551E047C.1070707@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 20:09:48 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: francois@php.net, 'Dennis Birkholz' <dennis@birkholz.biz>, 
 internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAH-PCH74+2-S2ySME1X5QW5rA9Jb5=1T+hJ3t1sxHiaTO31RJA@mail.gmail.com> <551BC7CF.3080309@birkholz.biz> <551C44C7.6060108@gmail.com> <551C48AC.3090908@birkholz.biz> <551C4A60.2050805@gmail.com> <551C5045.3010405@birkholz.biz> <551C56E2.8090100@gmail.com> <551C5AFB.7090107@birkholz.biz> <551C6296.40101@gmail.com> <036301d06d61$4e674370$eb35ca50$@php.net>
In-Reply-To: <036301d06d61$4e674370$eb35ca50$@php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] What's our official stance on small self-contained
 additions in a micro version
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> It seems to me we are mixing two questions : can 'small
> self-contained' changes be introduced in a patch release, and how
> 'small' and 'self-contained' a change must be not to require an RFC ?
> It seems implicit that, once an RFC is written, it is not a 'small
> self-contained' change anymore.

Having RFC is not related to change being self-contained, but rather
with if the change is obvious or needs more thorough discussion.
*Usually* the latter would also not be small, but not in every case. On
the other hand, the change may be needing thorough discussion, but when
the discussion has been done, the code change itself may be tiny and
self-contained. So it's not the same.

> One example : https://wiki.php.net/rfc/cyclic-replace can probably be
> considered as a 'small self-contained' addition. Should I continue
> with the RFC, respecting feature freeze and proposing it for 7.1, or
> should I just ask the PR to be merged in 7.0 ? If it is accepted by a
> vote, can it still go to 7.0 ? It is really not clear to me.

This RFC seems to request a change in functionality of existing
function, which already does something (albeit not very useful thing).
This doesn't look like self-contained change to me.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com