Re: What's our official stance on small self-contained additions in a micro version

> On 01 04 2015, at 18:28, François Laupretre <francois@php.net> wrote: > >> De : Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyra3l@gmail.com] >> >> I could accept any decision between holding off new features until next >> minor/major and allowing features explicitly without going through an RFC, but I >> want to have an explicit definition on what is allowed and how should the case- >> by-case process work. > > The release process document is clear : "New features or additions to the core should go > through the RFC process." (hopefully considering the 'core' as the whole PHP > distribution). It would be better using "must" instead of "should" but it is > quite clear. > > So, providing "a room for exceptions on a case by case basis and only for small > self-contained features and additions" does not mean that these features don't have to go > through an RFC. There is nothing to add to the rules, we just need to have them enforced by people > who currently merge new features without demanding an approved RFC. If everyone respects the rules, > the 'case by case process' is clear, it means 'approved through an RFC'. Only > bug fixes with no side effect can be merged without an RFC. > > So, once again, as https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1145 > clearly did not follow the rules and was not approved in any way, I'm asking whoever merged it > to revert the change and ask the author to go through an RFC. It’s not a secret that I’m not a big fan of too much bureaucracy, we’re still humans that can discuss and argue without a formal RFC. If anything develops to be controversial, let’s go through an RFC, if not, then fine and let them go ahead.