Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118794 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75567 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2022 09:02:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 11 Oct 2022 09:02:36 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571ED1804BC for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 02:02:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f45.google.com (mail-wr1-f45.google.com [209.85.221.45]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 02:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f45.google.com with SMTP id bp11so7801633wrb.9 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 02:02:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WY+SETTcMIipptmmY99bXYsSjj/9jDSzYdE8R6Wl/xE=; b=p/N2PxYSsHpvAE/LEtZS8utHu3fS4WFl5ykJRWhM43t09NsAQAXuVpLKcFuCeF1bbJ oVav3/MlZoTMVehRCHjSd4Y/wXX7om/V9HJsR1+iXysUWtIGPOvTuWIVg8B0OCF5/z6B 1Gkulj/V+W+OHZW4YTBKUjhhYpvBUrEbcfSuqqtUzn6w4jLdx7l2rFusQd1B0ELd7cnM Ejupqg2y1jHfds8Vu7WY4nuLu9EI/qILRN5PT9jgD3BP2nv0NCDKz0wAHqXCCWWVLoE2 xBtWkstWqXclSAXERVRAT4OlYPrNp9+ds5gIsXwAAyj76CU+WsIywGJpljCWjSf2mIFM YazQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WY+SETTcMIipptmmY99bXYsSjj/9jDSzYdE8R6Wl/xE=; b=zi8ArLPWNEUqkwrgPUHhflwKqA3ANEAI9FFlURxaAqu8kaXy8P3GZBYRWCJhedCZtD E8JCk4UHhQObEi1H3iRJX/+v5uQ63m8hgkx2R/BRTn+HSexODNgD4Yv5nPR8K/YbSirK 05EYDuOAtj9p1Qc76iMsnp3N+UzOSt9dYgRhuTgVTWueoSyAr3lXP8KbNPyxpBHk/9M2 N4hkzDND1hqeZ7HapS67N7XOM+P+PAXRJLGdVgb6Rwf7Rv7rXn2YNmhC53K3AmuzTjp7 j64LdU1Q1hsaHqwyyKAwWIDpgVaMZVBXY3swb16l2rmmQVOrKrd+osFMD8DJhWY+nCUn icTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2pyuLMdGAMIS0Cu5b7yjPuQZXhBU9yCisGrXv+dGdJ27eVwAtY jgDq+lIVGbgyFSZM91vH7tHYUCacG5I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6pMDLdT4Pm19lVHCFBvUgsbzFkWrWM2XAxvewmi6ntHkEBpMqeMfl9bqzuV4Gug/jf6pxvOw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:912:b0:230:9113:1a09 with SMTP id bz18-20020a056000091200b0023091131a09mr5684298wrb.707.1665478953644; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 02:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (cpc104104-brig22-2-0-cust548.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [82.10.58.37]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id bo17-20020a056000069100b0022e653f5abbsm10912633wrb.69.2022.10.11.02.02.32 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Oct 2022 02:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:02:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.2 To: internals@lists.php.net References: Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Experimental features From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) Hi all, I'm still not convinced everyone on this thread is actually talking about the same idea. For instance, on whether an experimental feature would require the same consensus as a non-experimental one: On 11/10/2022 00:06, Mike Schinkel wrote: > If there were an RFC for Experimental Use then the people on the fence could choose to allow it to see how it plays out in real-world userland cases, and a few people against it might be convinced to allow people to evaluate it, and then later make a decision on a "Forever RFC." On 11/10/2022 05:38, Jordan LeDoux wrote: > I don't really see what the confusion is about. It's for features that we > have all agreed to include, but that the public API or behavior might > change in minor versions while usage information, feedback, and so-on > happens. Similarly, some are talking about getting features to users sooner, but others about leaving it experimental for as long as it takes, which means it gets to production *later* than if it was tested in the existing alpha/beta cycle. I think it would be really helpful to have some concrete examples, either from other languages, or of a hypothetical feature that you think would be a good use case clarifying: * How it would be accepted as experimental - would it require the same voting threshold etc as a "stable" feature? * When would it be released - in PHP terms, if it was voted on in April this year, would it have gone into 8.1.5 or waited until 8.2.0? * What is the process for changes? Would they require votes? Would they go into point releases like 8.1.9 or 8.2.5, or wait until 8.3.0? * What is the process for marking stable? Would it require another vote? What version would *that* go into? I'm not saying we have to have final answers to these questions, but it would be helpful to understand people's gut feeling on them, to get a better idea of what people are imagining. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]