Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106980 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79622 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2019 19:15:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 12 Sep 2019 19:15:51 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8482D1FAC for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp3.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id w67so19907640lff.4 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:51:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paragonie-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=G2cqcjXQv6lcWAvS1Dizl9DBLCCNZjcvVs1MFXl8rYY=; b=cFSbC4d1AmbAYLVLWM2v4HYh1k31STZeO8OD7wgkvwezvXFMWSIfuiePaJVgRBWcKD /jter0zxYl44lpQ2E3mXw4yqFfkYqHqgQNmfZrDtnCkc1fPIo9jjXYgxwUvAvseMm9dX IOyefMVjPQYKXF6YtQu95/W9cfebXGf/SUnoCg415z4a08L7EnNliQguF00qLPUuQ5ti 08n7AfrLF9FhReIqi5qn35xYOnp/XnoyIaNYD29D/+4vH8rA9gLh82frQbnHMQ3GR9qj 7YfJ/tLp6czdFXct5hzm60IU1FVD+m4Iui4VhpBkM/L5vmByBpoJ0Anz+Ia85PqlrxBM syjA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=G2cqcjXQv6lcWAvS1Dizl9DBLCCNZjcvVs1MFXl8rYY=; b=k8sizh65qzXEQcnc34BQZ0ORcmWnUN+ODtJ2DTCfXJXXUkMctP1nZJ6RB+aJwwh5mC M2Vn3cPSUE5RTnTmZOpes6EbJJTUiPcNFfxLO58+Ka2Pkck33qGn3PsULxB2KSGocgFQ c5DBE9binIumj7g1JWHGQSUzXWyxcZ8PJItpjbenzo6/lMqEzXwSomXaKzXmAkr2o7ss GT1wOg7J6JzgBtlQYor4C33yjxvpXUXII3aX8+MY88s6OA35GjzfrRqjEVmd9DNe63je GxKXy7PQP8RfKE3VcVpd+/kPIiYwiZpmszg0l5zNt0E5Bw2eOUwjjBBCG/31W4mggWi3 dwFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwrRM6mis0odEfnwEUtHLKdA+vMMwRc9pjVB9RJMfpG2JunYvx VFhMC57IozjF5mwHkkOp7jmw+RWywDqJWfP5JJEcew== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqypInV9FgCubKeoMhvVyLxkfZBKGUwdentr1VkrDQfxtpWl5l0z0cb0SoQLPEZEUUp5Lnehi+uLGLrmtOpcocY= X-Received: by 2002:a19:8a0b:: with SMTP id m11mr5197189lfd.4.1568307105441; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <076701d56978$86020910$92061b30$@php.net> <078e01d5697c$5512bc10$ff383430$@php.net> In-Reply-To: <078e01d5697c$5512bc10$ff383430$@php.net> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 12:51:33 -0400 Message-ID: To: Zeev Suraski Cc: Marco Pivetta , PHP Internals List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors From: scott@paragonie.com (Scott Arciszewski) I'd like to weigh in as a voice of reason here. > There are no processes to make fundamental non-opt-in language changes in= PHP. This part might be reasonable. > There won't be such processes either. These behaviors are here to stay. W= e can tweak them, we can augment them - we do not get to deprecate or radic= ally change them. This part is totally unreasonable. Let me explain: "We lack a process" opens a door. If the RFC process is inadequate to address necessary deprecations and removals, then what process *would* be adequate and appropriate? THIS IS A GOOD CONVERSATION TO HAVE! Especially if you believe contrary to Zeev about whether the RFC process is adequate and appropriate. "There won't be such processes either" shuts the just-opened door in the rudest manner possible. This doesn't lead to a productive conversation, this just ends it with Zeev's opinion being final. My thoughts: I think we should give Zeev precisely half of what he wants here: Let's discuss whether a separate process should be created for deprecations/removals... and if so, what it would look like. And then if we come up with something new, in true Internals fashion, create an RFC and vote on our new addition to the RFC process. (Even Zeev has to acknowledge that additions are fine, with 2/3 majority.) But we shouldn't accept his door-shutting terms just because he says so. Respectfully, Scott Arciszewski Chief Development Officer Paragon Initiative Enterprises Scott Arciszewski Chief Development Officer Paragon Initiative Enterprises On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:11 AM Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marco Pivetta > > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:59 PM > > To: Zeev Suraski > > Cc: PHP Internals List > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors > > > > If you want to have an authoritative say on what the RFC process is for= or not, > > please start a new RFC about it: your mail is just straight out inappro= priate. > > No Marco. The RFC process wasn't meant to deal with who has authoritativ= e say any more than it was meant to deal with changing fundamental behavior= s in PHP. The fact we got used to putting everything to a vote doesn't mea= n that it can work for anything and everything. > > While I realize my email is unpleasant for many to read, it's in the cont= ext of an RFC that attempts to do something that is strictly inappropriate = and out of the question. Stating the fact, that the RFC process was never = meant to allow this to be done, is a statement of fact. > > I *hate* to be in the position to be the one who has to point it out and = stick to it. I know how much fire that's going to draw and I know I'd hate= every second of it. But it is what it is. > > There are no processes to make fundamental non-opt-in language changes in= PHP. There won't be such processes either. These behaviors are here to s= tay. We can tweak them, we can augment them - we do not get to deprecate o= r radically change them. > > We can (and I believe should) augment them with alternative, stricter opt= -in behaviors. But those who dream of simply changing PHP into a stricter = language step by step should understand that this is simply not going to be= happen. Not now, not ever. > > Zeev > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >