Indeed it appears Dmitry is right - code refactoring is generally NOT
allowed (unless there is an explicit RFC vote, and I havn't seen one).
IMO this is a bug in the process, and I'm trying to fix it. It should
be allowed to merge small incremental improvements without a dedicated
RFC.
This is the first draft of my RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/code_optimizations
Let's discuss.
Max
Indeed it appears Dmitry is right - code refactoring is generally NOT
allowed (unless there is an explicit RFC vote, and I havn't seen one).IMO this is a bug in the process, and I'm trying to fix it. It should
be allowed to merge small incremental improvements without a dedicated
RFC.This is the first draft of my RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/code_optimizationsLet's discuss.
Max
--
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
I'm not a voter, but my two cents anyway, as that's the point of internals.
Seems like there could be a historical reason this is the way it is. The
RFC process involves proposing changes to the PHP language that has an
impact on:
- Core Developers
- Extension Developers
- Documentation
- Release Managers
- Libraries and Frameworks
- Users of PHP
- Server Admins (potentially)
As such, the RFC process exists to provide the possibility of involvement
of a larger community. Changes to existing code in the way that is
described on this RFC has a direct impact on Core Developers and maybe
Extension Developers and nobody else. I'm guessing the RFC process has
never been used for it before because it mainly involves the folks
developing the language itself and has no direct impact on everyone else.
If Core Developers can agree, review and approve each other's code change,
no RFC has ever been necessary.
The problem now is that there's a dispute between core developers and there
doesn't seem to be a way to resolve such dispute. The downside of this RFC
is that it opens up the discussion of how to write internal code for PHP to
a larger community that has no strong involvement in it with more potential
to harm than improvements.
All in all, Dmitry, Max and other core developers could try to find common
ground, understand each other and see past the issue at hand. The language
could always benefit from having more core contributors instead of less, so
perhaps there's something that can be done so Max can feel more welcome. In
contrast, a decade's worth of internal contributions from Dmitry shouldn't
be dismissed and Max could try to better understand where Dmitry is coming
from.
I think a lot of senior developers can sympathise when new developers full
of energy join the team and want to make drastic changes everywhere. It can
feel like a golden retriever making a mess. But a fresh perspective and a
diverse mindset can often find new solutions and improve the project in the
long-term. Krakjoe and The PHP Foundation is trying to reduce the bus
factor of PHP and Max is one way of achieving that.
In conclusion, I don't think this RFC should move forward but if it does,
it would be important for every voter to think whether this has a direct
impact on their contribution to PHP or if it should be something left for
folks that have skin in the game to decide.
One last thing: if Max's change can be beneficial to the project, but are
causing other issues such as merge conflicts or breaking stuff, send these
stuff to him and ask him to see for himself the consequences of his
changes. Maybe he can decide for himself that reverting is the best
approach or maybe he can use his energy to fix even deeper issues.
--
Marco Deleu
The current amount of secondary votes makes it feel daunting. I would
suspect not all voters will think thoroughly about each of the questions.
I suggest that most of these questions could be agreed upon in discussions
before the vote.
Maybe the RFC could propose a certain wording of the guidelines? The
community could then agree on most details via a discussion. And the vote
question would turn from "should x be allowed?" to "change guidelines to the
proposed ones?" which might feel less abstract for most voters.
Of course, secondary votes might still have their place, but only for the
contentious questions where there is no consensus.
Regards,
Juris
The current amount of secondary votes makes it feel daunting. I would
suspect not all voters will think thoroughly about each of the questions.
I suggest that most of these questions could be agreed upon in discussions
before the vote.
Casting a vote seems like the canonical way to get a decision, but I
agree that the number of secondary votes makes this RFC somewhat
unwieldy, that was my thought as well. If the discussion leads to an
agreement, of course I'm open to removing affected secondary votes.
For now, let's consider the list of secondary votes like a discussion
agenda.
Maybe the RFC could propose a certain wording of the guidelines? The
community could then agree on most details via a discussion.
Yes, that should certainly be amended, but I did not yet suggest a
wording, because that would be the result of the pre-vote discussion.
I'm not even sure if this RFC isn't ill-advised - it is based on my
(undisputed) understanding that code optimizations are not covered by
what is allowed to be done without a RFC (after somebody pointed out
that merging my work violated community guidelines), yet every day
other people's code optimizations are accepted.
Not just that - at least once, after my work was reverted, somebody
else resubmitted the exact same change and it got accepted. I'm
confused, and I seek clarification.
Max
IMO this is a bug in the process, and I'm trying to fix it. It should
be allowed to merge small incremental improvements without a dedicated
RFC.This is the first draft of my RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/code_optimizations
My RFC draft is hereby withdrawn. I no longer intend to upstream my
PHP improvements. Sorry for the noise.
Max
Seems Uncle Bob with his boy scout rule left the room...
IMO this is a bug in the process, and I'm trying to fix it. It should
be allowed to merge small incremental improvements without a dedicated
RFC.This is the first draft of my RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/code_optimizationsMy RFC draft is hereby withdrawn. I no longer intend to upstream my
PHP improvements. Sorry for the noise.Max
--
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Seems Uncle Bob with his boy scout rule left the room...
This comment is very, very unnecessary. The message sent to the new
potential maintainers by the outcome of the whole discussion is not very
promising and such cheap irony doesn't help neither. I hope that at least
PHP internals community can learn how to handle such cooperation problems
in the future to bring a new value, not to effectively discourage people
from contributing.
Seems Uncle Bob with his boy scout rule left the room...
IMO this is a bug in the process, and I'm trying to fix it. It should
be allowed to merge small incremental improvements without a dedicated
RFC.This is the first draft of my RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/code_optimizationsMy RFC draft is hereby withdrawn. I no longer intend to upstream my
PHP improvements. Sorry for the noise.Max
--
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi
This comment is very, very unnecessary. The message sent to the new
potential maintainers by the outcome of the whole discussion is not very
promising and such cheap irony doesn't help neither. I hope that at least
PHP internals community can learn how to handle such cooperation problems
in the future to bring a new value, not to effectively discourage people
from contributing.Seems Uncle Bob with his boy scout rule left the room...
I agree. Max did not get personal and is not deserving of such a
condescending response. There will always be technical disagreements,
this is certainly not the way to handle them.
Ilija