On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/11/2014 18:06, Remi Collet wrote: > >> >However, I think we should stop including features in our patch >>> >releases. I've heard a few others express similar sentiment, but >>> >it may have been more targeted at what we are allowing for "bug >>> >fixes" in patch releases. Anyway, that's my input. >>> >> Yes, I'm one wanting to reduce new feature in stable branch... >> >> This is the reason why I propose this feature for 5.6 (not 5.5) and >> with a new option to not change default build. >> > > But that's still technically introducing a feature in a patch release. > > From a documentation point of view, it's a lot tidier if we only ever have > to say "since PHP x.y" rather than "since x.y.z", and as you say, there's > always a risk. I don't know much about this case, but let's say a mistake > allowed a misconfigured build to apply an inadvertently wide ACL; having > that emerge in a patch release could mean downstream maintainers losing > faith in the official releases, and make everyone's lives harder. > > Part of the stated aim of the release process RFC [1] was to "reduce the > time to get new features in a release", and the solution to that was to > guarantee a release every year, so that there's never more than a few > months to wait, while simultaneously having clean, safe, patch builds. The > crucial paragraph is this: > > > No feature addition after final x.y.0 release (or x.0.0). Self contained > features or new SAPIs could be carefully considered on a case by case basis. > > That wording implies - in my opinion - that the burden of argument should > be on the feature's sponsor for why an exception should be made, but > there's a temptation to shoot for inclusion everywhere and see if the RM > challenges it. > > [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess this is also my interpretation(that is should be of a case-by-case approval process instead of a RMs can veto if they really want), but I seem to be the minority on this side. having said that, I would be fine having this one in 5.6.x. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
