Re: [PHP-DEV] Guidelines for RFC post feature-freeze

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
August 25, 2021 18:16 (Derick Rethans)
On 25 August 2021 17:58:55 BST, Nicolas Grekas> wrote:
>Le mar. 24 août 2021 à 21:09, Derick Rethans <> a écrit : > >> On 24 August 2021 19:53:57 BST, Deleu <> wrote: >> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 19:28 Derick Rethans <> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote: >> >> >> >> > 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]. >> >> >> >> I find this comparison disingenuous. >> >> >> > >> >I want to state that I had no intention to compare the RFCs or even bring >> >their merits into discussion. What I intended to show is that we have 8.0 >> >which had an RFC that would classify as Refinement RFC and 8.1 again >> having >> >another RFC that also classifies under the same category. >> >> That's where I disagree already. The nullable intersections RFC isn't a >> refinement, it's a new feature. > >Can you please clarify what you want to express here? Your insistence in >repeating that statement makes me read this as: "the nullable intersections >RFC was not legal".
You're wanting to add a new feature during feature freeze, so yes, I wouldn't have allowed it.
> If that's the case, I find that deeply disturbing, >because I need to be allowed to discuss not-yet-released features during >the freeze period.
Yes, suggesting tweaks to existing features is fine, up to a certain point. Introducing new ones is not.
> Whether an RFC should be considered as a new feature >should be the end of the discussion, not the abruptly-closing start. The >reason is that there is no precise definition of what "a feature" means.
The RFC was "pure intersection types", with a scope decided by its author. That RFC says no Union types.
>Maybe it's obvious for you in this case, but others shouldn't be denied the >right to discuss the topic.
Discuss whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that a new feature RFC should be allowed during a feature freeze.
>I think that we can reach a common agreement by working on the definition >of what we mean by "Refinement RFC". > >Marco's gist defines them as "An RFC proposing changes, amendments, >adjustments to the language while refining an unreleased change that has >been approved." I'm sure we can improve it, but I mostly agree with this >statement. My RFC falls under this definition,
I disagree that it does. Union intersection types is something that the pure intersection types RFC ruled out.
> and that should be enough to >end the debate around whether any particular post-feat-freeze RFCs are >legal. I think we should focus our efforts on improving this definition, >and move forward.
This is all moot, because that RFC hasn't been passed. I also don't think it's necessary. If you want to disregard the concept of a feature freeze, that's fine too. But not in the PHP project. Cheers Derick