Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107318 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79219 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2019 04:09:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 25 Sep 2019 04:09:03 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A292D1FB7 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:48:04 -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=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (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 ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id b9so4284084wrs.0 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:48:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N6ul9PA9TOSUWsN++V7vCZrJnA4OkTHnE94Y2mCecZQ=; b=ookAJwwDlKsMUsx5gFzD6u7AIYFtjzcX+okJWkbPdwLzmLGt8lFbRTxXIKe6SfIqSh xJqfXzQKEscCoiYcb8EiJVHZjIKJiBvhfi8slz5HMu9Bc6lgX64wIYB8t99T9K/RhSrm CG8b3zlPXrUA8d5+G2S0948gXmrKiF2jGAxPw2paHfawlwfagx40QwFdCxdzPdk3EbBF oKjERm+OcHPNbTmB2zSY6O9OBeh7ESHVtz9lKXXOJ3j3QE+BOFg6q5C7j4SRQ7GUFfKP GyDlxL/26LamCQdsbU3gwjPzwbJo+zRP/mSisjFLDOgrhCfgxz3bMHiG/+rh0apImTK/ zSAQ== 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; bh=N6ul9PA9TOSUWsN++V7vCZrJnA4OkTHnE94Y2mCecZQ=; b=kl6fSDdhOqLLbq0RkMv3ZOPJvs5aZPEXFWBL4uJiSqc+3Scx1h/NKKo64nMIj2bKB9 G4ygX2tv77ja5ricAsR3C91atJHgR2J4gKXnx9wU0knTO7EhLBksMSEXcJpvoK6du4EA HjIdKBCJCeq7/PrtLKGLsXyDFqHW6+COqa4WQ3phgZSLDx9CUavSvxChBIOcrowPjhAg U1XlzheTCs4O5/auZulCkp9uvAK50Po9VUbsGs+wlDPGb7r24S1BdmRO33ejBiLv5eR9 L2uENqc/VFOmqNJWOOaE0uOp3Esg1ZSHbp70EA1QLmGVPD0in86DOi6MzmA320SN2XMr /E/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXMTt8sQbRHmW5gzJOd8BXzVjgaJRVLRACZx6vQ9FfSrg94b8Tp YWnxZXbk6yoNhWj2WCxuK2rI3fSuEZ8MRX7IU2mn65eu X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqygnyvCpHpDFOrjCwYL32R6iljO1a1bxNAA306iHUSF7yXy4Y25R0kv96m0D9Rd4wbzJwM+wDOqXkL57QNVdOM= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:430e:: with SMTP id h14mr5912018wrq.18.1569376082283; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:48:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <696dc114-c2df-40aa-aad6-5b87d4373c0e@www.fastmail.com> <83A8831C-1570-4E62-BF37-06774C5FB26D@cschneid.com> In-Reply-To: <83A8831C-1570-4E62-BF37-06774C5FB26D@cschneid.com> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:47:48 +0700 Message-ID: To: Christian Schneider Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e753a3059356d735" X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFCs should mention all BC breaks (was Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.4 BC break with openssl_random_pseudo_bytes()) From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) --000000000000e753a3059356d735 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:11 PM Christian Schneider wrote: > > So here is my question: Am I the only one who thinks BC breaks should be > fully covered in an RFC before voting? > If I am not mistaken this is the rule yes. A specific section should exist to list BC breaks. Also a BC break is not allowed in minor versions. The question is also about what is a BC break, f.e is changing error level a BC break? or the return value on error? I am in favour of more strict BC rules for minor versions, but this is a tricky topic. Best, --000000000000e753a3059356d735--