On Thu, Aug 8, 2024, at 16:10, Andreas Heigl wrote: > Hey Gina, hey all > > Am 08.08.24 um 15:44 schrieb Gina P. Banyard: > > On Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 17:07, Andreas Heigl <andr...@heigl.org> > > wrote: > >> Stupid question maybe, but are we voting on the RFC or on the patch? > >> > >> If the patch does not match what.the RFC proposes, then the patch has > >> a problem. That should IMO though not affect voting on an RFC. > >> > >> Or am I.missimg something? > > > > In theory, it is the RFC idea. > > In practice, a lot of the times it is the patch for complex features. > > > > However, it is still within the purview of core developers to veto the > > implementation of an RFC. > > Which could be the case here rather than voting against the RFC outright. > > I have no problem that core developers veto a certain implementation of > an RFC. I actually expect them to do so. > > But the vote should IMO *always and exclusively* be based on the RFC. > Not on the implementation. If the voting happens based on the > implementation due to the complexity of the features that means that the > RFC is not wel written and needs to be improved. Or the implementation > is problematic and needs to be vetoed by the core developers. > > Why do I think so? It becomes completely intransparent why an RFC was > rejected when the voting happens based on a meager implementation as > after some years no one will understand why a well written RFC was > rejected. Especially when the discussion then also happens off-list and > on the actual code in github as that tears apart the information sources > that need to be taken into consideration in hindsight.
I would expect any implementation done before the RFC is voted on to be entirely proof-of-concept, and not expected to be mergable as-is. Basically, a way to test out the new proposed RFC, but may have issues (such as memory leaks or not all edge cases implemented). I, personally, wouldn’t expect an RFC to be declined based on the initial patch. That’s good information to add to the rfc how-to page. — Rob
