Re: [RFC] Separation of Third-Party Extension Documentation

On Fri, 29 May 2026 at 17:10, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2026, at 2:15 PM, Jordi Kroon wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I've opened an RFC to separate third-party extension documentation > > (imagick, redis, mongodb, etc) from the official PHP manual, while > > keeping the existing DocBook tooling and infrastructure. > > > > Bundled extensions (pdo, curl, etc) are out of scope and stay in the > > official PHP manual. > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/third_party_ext_documentation > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Jordi Kroon > > I support this. Having first-party extensions and seemingly abandoned third party extensions > in the same list has always struck me as very misleading. Just the benefit for documentation > readers alone makes it worth it, IMO. > > Question: What about comments on any of the to-be-moved pages? My vote would be to just nuke > them from orbit in the process, as manual comments have about a 1% "usefulness" rate. In > fact I'd be completely on board with not enabling comments on the contrib-docs built at all and > making it strictly readonly, with links to GitHub if someone is in a contributing mood. > > --Larry Garfield In my opinion, having comments on a language documentation site is an outdated practice. If there is an issue or something is missing from the documentation, then a GH issue should be raised. If someone wants to share a code snippet with either an additional use case or some polyfill, there are better places to post it, e.g. Stack Overflow. Regarding the move, I would advise that we first archive all abandoned extensions and then only move the still-maintained third-party extensions.