On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Johannes Schlüter
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So what is the purpose of the rule? If a "normal" RFC vote can do
> whatever it likes why have that rule? As you are the author I'm happy to
> learn your interpretation.
The RFC says that internals API and ABI can be broken in x.y+1. I have
no idea where it says that it can't. However it cannot be an
unilateral decision, why we have a RFC in this case f.e. unlike other
changes in 5.4 or 5.5.
>> > In my interpretation this rule is meant to allow
>> > small changes, affecting only few extensions and where it would be
>> > stupid to defer the.
>>
>> To defer the ...?
>
> ... the change.
>
>> At least you did not loose your sense of humor.
>
> Yes, humor indeed helps if the one who creates the rules is also the one
> who tries to bend it the most.
First, there are many authors. Secondly this RFC follows every single
step of the RFC process and will do until the votes phase is over and
accept the results, no matter how they look.
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org