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

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
  115833
August 25, 2021 20:19 ramsey@php.net (Ben Ramsey)
--nSBXVqLi6FMVgalXbpD5x2j9Qj9ae56xA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nicolas Grekas wrote on 8/25/21 12:29:
> I would welcome a new RFC to clarify what is allowed during the feature=
> freeze.=20
As Derick mentioned in another post (by essentially quoting the Wikipedia entry for "Feature freeze"), this period is a well-understood phase of software development. We use this phase for fixing bugs and stabilizing implementations. Changing how a feature works or adding to a feature classifies as new feature development and is not a bugfix or stability improvement. Even the definition proposed for a "Refinement RFC" is describing new feature development (it proposes "changes, amendments, adjustments to the language while refining an unreleased change that has been approved"). A refinement is a new feature. A bugfix is not a refinement.
> As I wrote in another thread, my opinion is that anything that is > not yet released should be re-discussable until either beta or RC stage= , at
> least for simple changes (I wouldn't have submitted my RFC if the patch=
> wasn't trivial from a technical pov.)
We announced Beta 1 on 22 July, which is the same date you opened the Nullable Intersection Types RFC. So, according to your own opinion, you opened it too late for re-discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by "re-discussable." Do you mean that you want to challenge a feature that's already been accepted? I think that's fine prior to feature freeze, but afterwards, unless new information reveals significant risk to the release, we shouldn't attempt to reverse or change the decision of the voters.
> WIth the current feature freeze schedule, I realize that there is littl= e to
> no room for userland to play with a feature-full binary before it's too=
> late to give feedback. I experienced this when I was objected that the = RFC
> was 4 months old already. I can't keep up with testing all RFCs. But if=
> there is a clear window where such feedback is welcomed, I would happil= y
> use it. I think others would too.
I think this is a good point. Right now, we don't define this period. Since feature freeze starts at the first beta release, this implies that this period is during the alpha releases. Perhaps we should lengthen the alpha phase to provide more time for userland testing. Unfortunately, through my conversations with other userland library maintainers, many don't want to attempt testing until the release candidates are available, so that's a problem in itself. Cheers, Ben --nSBXVqLi6FMVgalXbpD5x2j9Qj9ae56xA--