On 19/03/2017 21:54, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
I don't really think that we any definition for mantainer role.
Currently it varies depending on the extension. For example you won't
see many RFC's in date ext which is very well maintained by Derick and
most of the changes are decided by him which I think is a very good
thing and works very well.
[...]
Sorry but I just don't agree with that. We are talking about a feature
for PDO that not many voters is interested in. That's completely
different than a language change. The interest in other core
extensions is often the same.
Fair points. I'm not sure the RFC process as a whole works well for
specialist decisions - the same has come up with very technical Engine
changes.
I think this kind of breaks down into two questions:
- Which changes need an RFC?
- If a change does need an RFC, what level of support does it need?
I don't have particularly good answers, but "this change shouldn't have
needed an RFC in the first place" is a very different direction from
"after the RFC has been debated, this person should have a veto /
casting vote". I realise that's not what you were suggesting, though,
and I'm happy to go with "the current system is not really a problem".
If we had such rule on the minimal number of votes, one person could
easily block any progress on the any extension.
I am a little curious what you meant by this, though; I can't see how it
follows at all.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
