Re: To RFC or Not To RFC [was Re: [PHP-DEV ] 回复: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Add preg_replace_callback_arra y function]
| From: | Pierre Joye | Date: | Sun, 22 Mar 2015 09:05:28 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: To RFC or Not To RFC [was Re: [PHP-DEV ] 回复: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Add preg_replace_callback_arra y function] | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-85402@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Mar 22, 2015 3:45 PM, "Leigh" <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 22 March 2015 at 07:00, Patrick Schaaf <php@bof.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. Is that really the line to be drawn? An RFC, by itself, provides a
> > good point to spell out a change clearly, and anchor it for reference in
> > discussion. Discussion on internals itself cannot provide that, it is
too
> > scattered, and POC code provides it at the code layer only. Thinking
about
> > documentation, for example.
> >
> Sure, I can agree on RFC all the things.
>
> > So, maybe the line is better drawn at what needs a vote, and what does
not?
> >
> > Just an idea: as soon as an RFC goes up / leaves draft state, could it
> > have a "needs a vote?" prevoting section? And if a certain minimum opts
for
> > "needs a vote" (within a minimum discussion period after leaving draft),
> > one must be held? (thinking about a one week period and three or five
> > needs-a-vote calls, or something similar)
> >
> I suppose this could be part of the discussion on list when it is not
> obvious, then we at least have some documented opinions on the decision,
> rather than the assumptions of individuals.
The minimal discussion time is well documented and approved. Same for the
voting period.