Re: Guidelines for RFC post feature-freeze

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 23:07 Gabriel Caruso, <carusogabriel34@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 22:49 Deleu, <deleugyn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello everyone! >> >> We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an >> unconventional way starting a new RFC post feature freeze. If memory >> serves >> me right, another similar incident happened with the Attributes RFC which >> had a syntax that could not be implemented without a secondary RFC [1] and >> went through a secondary RFC which proposed a different syntax [2]. >> >> [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaced_names_as_token >> [2] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes_v2 >> >> I would like to gather opinion on a potential Policy RFC that would define >> some guidelines for such a process. As Nikita pointed out [3], the ability >> to refine new features is both important for the developer and >> undocumented >> for the PHP Project. >> >> In order to not be empty-handed, I started a gist that can be seen as the >> starting point for this discussion, available at >> �Aj� >> >�ڍ�G��/5https://gist.github.com/deleugpn/9d0e285f13f0b4fdcfc1d650b20c3105. >> >> Generally speaking, I'm first looking for feedback on whether this is >> something that deserves attention and an RFC or is it so rare that it's >> fine to leave it unchanged. If there is interest in moving forward, I >> would >> then also be interested in suggestions on things that should be >> included/excluded in the RFC. >> >> Marco Aurélio Deleu > > >> >> Thank you for being this one up, and yes: we should be a little bit more >> strict with stuff coming in, post feature freeze period! > > Bringing*, writing is difficult. > In PHP 8.0, Sara and I had the same problem :( >