On 2011-06-05, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philip Olson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions
>>> happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about
>>> release process, let adopt it already!) and move on with 5.4.
>>
>>
>> This is a prime example of what we're talking about. Several have expressed a desire
>> to follow an Ubuntu style of branching instead of the style proposed in said RFC. This is a core
>> issue, so the RFC is certainly not ready to adopt.
>>
>> So does this require a new RFC, or do the RFC proposers feel this is a key concept?
>
> As I stated before, there is a RFC with a fair amount of developers
> involved. Some of the supporters of the Ubuntu TLS model already
> changed their mind (as it clearly does not work for php, random
> features being TLS just because of the timing makes no sense). If you
> think a RFC is not ready, not desired, not good enough or whatever
> other reason motivates you, vote against and propose something else.
> But you can even say no and propose nothing afterwards.
I agree. People should stick to the RFC system to hve a documented way of
saying what they like and what not. If the RFC writers want to adopt a change
that's their things. So far there is no reason to change it.
> As of this specific RFC, it is actually a very good one, it is not
> perfect and will need adjustement in the coming years, that's a damned
> sure thing. But we can not argue forever only because a minority
> thinks we should argue endlessly or change nothing.
Yes. The Release RFC is nothing that needs Backward compatbility. We should
vote on the general direction instead of fighting over a minor details
and getting nothing done. Details can be modified with later RFCs.