On 26.09.2024 at 14:23, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Am 2024-09-24 17:14, schrieb Christoph M. Becker: > >> I want to suggest that we do not allow any RFC implementations to land >> during beta phase. In my opinion, the remaining time to thoroughly >> check and address possibly overlooked issues is way too short otherwise. > > FWIW, there was a recent RFC to clarify what is acceptable in which > phase of the release process. Given that you did not vote there, I > believe you might have missed it: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release_cycle_update
I missed it while it was under discussion and in voting, but have read it since then. And I almost fully agree to that RFC, except for the issue at hand. > While I agree with Bob that by disallowing the RFC implementation during > the Betas would make Betas and RCs effectively identical. Nevertheless I > would like to see RFCs with a large impact voted on (and implemented) > *well before* the feature freeze, as the recent history required > following up with another RFC multiple times (e.g. Random Extension in > 8.2, BCMath objects in 8.4, Property Hooks in 8.4). Asymmetric > visibility being voted on shortly before the freeze made me a little > uneasy for that reason. I'm not suggesting to forbid new features during beta, but only to forbid implementing RFCs during this time. While the implementation of some RFCs would not be a big deal, we have to draw the line somewhere, and I like to avoid additional discussions about which RFCs have a "large impact", and which do not. But I don't necessarily want to be too strict about that; for instance, PR #13578 has only been merged after the first beta, although it was there for almost half a year, but resolving the Windows test failures had not been done timely. So yeah, some exceptions to the suggested rule would be fine for me. See also Jakub's mail[1] with which I fully agree. And yes, I fully agree about aviz having been very late. [1] <https://externals.io/message/125666#125688> Christoph
