Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96463
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.193 as permitted sender)
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAGa2bXbUmRZ8EK4HB=WyKLK5EcACXZ_wisH1v3=2ib81-HetUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e70d1cbc-a3d7-fa98-f617-95ede9e869fa@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:27:40 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXbUmRZ8EK4HB=WyKLK5EcACXZ_wisH1v3=2ib81-HetUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Bug fix and RFC/Merge rule
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> I don't understand the reasoning why it requires RFC nor Merge
> approval. As we all know, there are many bug fixes without RFC nor
> discussion.

If the fix is uncontroversial (everybody agrees), no RFC/approval is
needed, since there already is approval, since nobody objects, which is
by definition approval. However, if somebody does object, then we need
to go through the process of determining consensus, namely, the RFC
vote, or relying on the judgment of the person we selected to do this -
namely, the RM.

> The patch fixes "uniqid() is not unique enough" bug.

I'm still not sure why this is even a bug, but I was pretty silent since
I also don't mind changing it that much.

> =="Someone explicitly requested RFC/Merge approval, so it should be reverted"==
> 
> IMHO, the patch is very simple patch only fixes problem. Many bug
> fixes include more severe BC issues than the patch, behavior changes
> and raised errors. Yet, no RFC nor discussions.

If somebody objected, there should be discussion and RFC. If nobody
objects, what's there to discuss?

> If someone requested RFC/Merge request for very simple patch, should
> we follow always?

Depends on how simple. Requesting RFC on something like fixing a typo in
error message would be obvious trolling, but if there's a reasonable
objection, then we need to discuss, even if the result of the discussion
is "it's not a problem, merge in". It's not that big of a deal - whole
RFC process can be done in 2-3 weeks if the topic was previously discussed.

> Question is:
>   - What kind of bug fix requires RFC?

One that a) makes user-visible changes, b) serious internal changes that
may substantially influence other developers or c) does not have consensus.

>   - What kind of bug fix requires discussion and approval to merge
> released versions?

One that does not have obvious consensus or introduces BC breaks which
are borderline (i.e. can be allowed in targeted version, in theory).

> After all, my question is "Should we discuss all bugs before commits?"

No, only those that are unobvious changes (fixing obvious crash or bug
or typo does not need discussion) or are controversial.

> "The revert is valid and reasonable?"

If there were objections raised in discussion before merge and they were
not reconciled and merge was still performed, or if there was no
opportunity to raise objections, then yes. I didn't follow the
discussion so I don't know if it's the case here.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com