Combine RFC forums

Discuss general development subjects that are not specific to a particular version like the versioning control system we use or other infrastructure.
User avatar
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Combine RFC forums

Post by imkingdavid »

Here wGEric suggests combining the rfc forums into one.

Here's the thought process: Despite 3.1's feature freeze, almost any feature that is completed by 3.1-A can be included in the codebase if deemed okay by the development team. As such, separating the RFC forums only makes things confusing.

Here's my proposal: Have one forum for 3.x RFCs and one forum for 4.x RFCs. Any RFC in 3.x RFCs that is completed by a version release will be included in that version. Any RFC not completed is then simply pushed back to subsequent versions. That's basically how it is now, except that RFCs are in two separate forums, which makes it confusing for members.

Another thought (from Oleg) would be to combine the RFC and Discussion forums, and then when a topic becomes ready to be an RFC, the first post would be edited (by a development team member, if the original author is not the one implementing the RFC) to state the RFC specifics and such. (Personally, I think it's okay to keep the two forums separate, but I'm not opposed to this idea either. There are a lot of places to discuss the same feature idea as it is.)

Thoughts?
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.
User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: Combine RFC forums

Post by MichaelC »

+1 to combining the forums. Although if an RFC is merged maybe it should be moved into a sub-forum specifically for that version to keep the main forum tidy and so you can see what is already in a release.

Also, perhaps topic icons should be used if the RFC is written for a particular version. For e.g. my HTML 5 Technologies RFC wouldn't work in 3.1 as not enough browsers support HTML 5 yet, but by 3.2 hopefully enough browsers will support it.

As for combining discussion and RFC forums, I can see the idea in this, but not all discussion topics for a version are suggestions for features etc. so some sort of discussion forum needs to be kept?
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.
User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1870
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Combine RFC forums

Post by DavidIQ »

I'm for it especially since I'm also of the opinion that we should go from 3.1 to 4.0 and just skip over 3.2 altogether. Combining the RFC forums would allow those RFCs for 3.2 that have been completed to be part of 3.1 instead. This does kind of make the whole feature freeze thing irrelevant though...

I would also suggest that further separation be made so that the accepted RFCs are in one forum, rejected ones in another, and those that are still being discussed remain in the main RFC forum for the specific version.
Image
User avatar
callumacrae
Former Team Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Combine RFC forums

Post by callumacrae »

DavidIQ wrote:This does kind of make the whole feature freeze thing irrelevant though...
I'd say that's a good thing - it goes back to the old logic of "You never finish a project, you just carry on coding until you realise that you have enough for a release".
Made by developers, for developers!
My blog
User avatar
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: Combine RFC forums

Post by imkingdavid »

DavidIQ wrote:I'm for it especially since I'm also of the opinion that we should go from 3.1 to 4.0 and just skip over 3.2 altogether.
We should wait to decide on that until 3.1 is out, probably.
DavidIQ wrote:Combining the RFC forums would allow those RFCs for 3.2 that have been completed to be part of 3.1 instead. This does kind of make the whole feature freeze thing irrelevant though...
IMO it has been irrelevant for a while. Because we have been merging new rfcs that are done by 3.1-a. Which is what makes the separate RFC forums unnecessary.
DavidIQ wrote:I would also suggest that further separation be made so that the accepted RFCs are in one forum, rejected ones in another, and those that are still being discussed remain in the main RFC forum for the specific version.
That would help decrease clutter. Maybe, however, a "Resolved RFCs" subforum for merged and rejected ones together as a subforum to the main RFCs forum.

Also, we should make the 3.1 Hook RFCs just a Hook RFCs forum (since we may need to add hooks later on).
Unknown Bliss wrote:Also, perhaps topic icons should be used if the RFC is written for a particular version. For e.g. my HTML 5 Technologies RFC wouldn't work in 3.1 as not enough browsers support HTML 5 yet, but by 3.2 hopefully enough browsers will support it.
Why not just put it in the topic title if an RFC has to wait for a specific version.
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.
User avatar
Jacob
Registered User
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:41 pm

Re: Combine RFC forums

Post by Jacob »

Hi.

I like the idea of combining the RFC forums, as for combining the RFC and discussion forums, I think this would be a good oportunity to move the features discussion to phpbb.com.

Things would be like this:
  • phpBB.com
    • Actual forums
    • Features/feedback forum
  • area51
    • 3.x Forum (RFC Topics mostly, but also discussion topics if needed)
    • 4.x Forum (Same as 3.x)
As for the merged RFCs, yes, I think moving them to a subforum as Unknown Bliss suggested would be good.

In the FFF (features/feedback forum at phpbb.com) people can talk about features, etc. If/when an idea comes up every once in a while a Mod (¿or anyone?) can open a Poll. People will vote and you could take into account the number of people who voted (popularity) and the people in favor and against it. Keep it simple, I don't think there's a real need to complicate things further.
(This way people will hopefully feel more implicated in the project and developers can easilly find if a feature is needed/wanted/liked...)

If there isn't already a topic for the same idea in area51, open it and discuss implementation as usual. (If there's already a topic in area51, well, it doesn't hurt if people want to talk about it on phpbb.com, right?)

So, IMHO:
  • Combining 3.1-3.2 forums, OK.
  • Combining Discussion and RFC forums, OK. And optionally->
    • Create a features discussion forum on phpbb.com, and simply making polls for every feature or something like that.

Maybe part of my post should be on this topic?: RFC Process Change Suggestion. Feel free to disregard it then, and sorry.
User avatar
bonelifer
Community Team
Community Team
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:41 am

Re: Combine RFC forums

Post by bonelifer »

DavidIQ wrote:I'm for it ...
+1

DavidIQ wrote:I'm for it especially since I'm also of the opinion that we should go from 3.1 to 4.0 and just skip over 3.2 altogether.
+++++++++++++++1
User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: Combine RFC forums

Post by MichaelC »

Maybe something like this perhaps?:
  • phpBB.com Redirect (Is this really needed with the phpBB.com header link?)
  • General Development Discussion
  • 3.x Development
    • 3.x Development Discussion
    • 3.x RFCs & New feature suggestions
      • 3.x Hooks RFCs
        • 3.x Resolved Hook RFCs
      • Resolved RFCs
        • 3.1.x Merged RFCs
        • 3.2.x Merged RFCs (Only when 3.1 reaches alpha)
        • 3.x Rejected Features/RFCs
  • 4.x Development
    • 4.x Development Discussion
    • 4.x RFCs & New features discussion
      • Resolved RFCs
        • 4.0.x Merged RFCs
        • 4.x Rejected Features/RFCs
  • Current Stable Branch
    • 3.0.x
      • 3.0.x Discussion
      • 3.0.x New features discussion
Then when 3.1.x reaches RC (Or 3.1.0):
  • phpBB.com Redirect (Is this really needed with the phpBB.com header link?)
  • General Development Discussion
  • 3.x Development
    • 3.x Development Discussion
    • 3.x RFCs & New features discussion
      • 3.x Hooks RFCs
        • 3.x Resolved Hook RFCs
      • Resolved RFCs
        • 3.2.x Merged RFCs
        • 3.x Rejected Features/RFCs
  • 4.x Development
    • 4.x Development Discussion
    • 4.x RFCs and New features discussion
      • Resolved RFCs
        • 4.0.x Merged RFCs
        • 4.x Rejected Features/RFCs
  • Current Stable Branch
    • 3.0.x
      • 3.0.x Discussion
    • 3.1.x
      • 3.1.x Discussion
      • 3.1.x New features discussion
  • Development Archive
    • 3.1.x Merged Development RFCs
    • 3.0.x New features discussion
Then when 3.0.x is EOL move that to Development Archive.

Key/Legend:
Red - Locked
Italic - Category

Thoughts?
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.
User avatar
naderman
Consultant
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:11 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: Combine RFC forums

Post by naderman »

+1 on what Unknown Bliss suggested, except I won't make the resolved forums subforums. I will take care of this later today, unless any reason not to is brought up.
User avatar
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: Combine RFC forums

Post by imkingdavid »

naderman wrote:+1 on what Unknown Bliss suggested, except I won't make the resolved forums subforums. I will take care of this later today, unless any reason not to is brought up.
Sounds good to me.
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.
Post Reply