rfc:umaintained_extensions

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
rfc:umaintained_extensions [2018/06/17 19:38] stasrfc:umaintained_extensions [2018/06/27 20:44] stas
Line 3: Line 3:
   * Date: 2016-08-07   * Date: 2016-08-07
   * Author: Stas Malyshev, stas@php.net   * Author: Stas Malyshev, stas@php.net
-  * Status: Under Discussion +  * Status: Voting
   * First Published at: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/umaintained_extensions   * First Published at: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/umaintained_extensions
  
Line 54: Line 54:
 in the future.  in the future. 
  
-The proposed procedure is to add years to each maintainer's status in the maintainers list, with the year to be updated manually by the maintainer. If by end of January of the year the last updated year is past the last year, the extension is deemed to be effectively unmaintained. In this case, the maintainer would be asked to clarify the maintainership status, and absent response or with negative response, the extension will be considered having no maintainer. This can be changed at any moment if the existing or new maintainer comes up (again, the priority is always towards finding the maintainer, not moving stuff out). +The proposed procedure is to add years to each maintainer's status in the maintainers list, with the year to be updated manually by the maintainer. If by end of January of the year the last updated year is past the last year (e.g., 2018 or less in January 2020), the extension is deemed to be abandoned by the maintainer. In this case, the maintainer would be asked to clarify the maintainership status, and absent response or with negative response, the extension will be considered having no maintainer. This can be changed at any moment if the existing or new maintainer comes up (again, the priority is always towards finding the maintainer, not moving stuff out). 
  
 To initiate this procedure, the years should be initialized with the last commit or last bug response from the maintainer to the maintained extension code or bugs.  To initiate this procedure, the years should be initialized with the last commit or last bug response from the maintainer to the maintained extension code or bugs. 
Line 64: Line 64:
 Since this RFC does not change the language, technical limit for passing is 50%+1 vote, however if it does not gather 2/3 "Yes" vote, I would like to hear from the opposing voices first and maybe improve it before we can implement it to satisfy their concerns.  Since this RFC does not change the language, technical limit for passing is 50%+1 vote, however if it does not gather 2/3 "Yes" vote, I would like to hear from the opposing voices first and maybe improve it before we can implement it to satisfy their concerns. 
  
-<doodle title="Institute the policy of cleaning up unmaintained extensions as described in this RFC" auth="stas" voteType="single" closed="false">+<doodle title="Institute the policy of cleaning up unmaintained extensions as described in this RFC" auth="stas" voteType="single" closed="true">
    * Yes    * Yes
    * No    * No
rfc/umaintained_extensions.txt · Last modified: 2018/08/22 11:23 by carusogabriel