Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119505
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:14:05 +0100
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <Y+TxnQXFbIzaa+za@swift.blarg.de>
References: <Y+TIlliuIwRyZX8L@swift.blarg.de>
 <CALKiJKrxkUP_9H+xiw+_=1qh+=4eJhSNNowFToAJDJ7x+FQN2Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALKiJKrxkUP_9H+xiw+_=1qh+=4eJhSNNowFToAJDJ7x+FQN2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] How to deal with bugs in vendored libraries?
From: max+php@blarg.de (Max Kellermann)

On 2023/02/09 13:37, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:
> Firstly, let's try to keep this discussion civil, and assume good faith on
> both sides. Parts of your e-mail read like accusations of bad behaviour,
> rather than genuinely trying to understand what happened, and how we can
> collectively avoid it happening in future.

While I do have an opinion on whether I consider Derick Rethan's
behavior bad (yes, I do), that's not the point here.  I don't know how
to proceed after my PR thread was locked - that's an unequivocal sign
of refusal to discuss the issue.  The issue still exists, and I'm here
for your advice on how to resolve this.  I'm desperate.

> Secondly, note that Derick Rethans is the maintainer of both timelib and
> the ext/date extension in php-src. So while we can discuss the hypothetical
> question of how to handle a disagreement between php-src and upstream
> library maintainers, it wouldn't apply in this case anyway, because it
> would require Derick to disagree with himself.

That depends.  Did the PHP project decide to go C99 starting with
version 8?  What does that mean for maintainers - can they decide to
make code changes that are not compliant with that decision?

That is a honest question.  I don't know how PHP works.

That's why I asked whether "secret" reverts without discussion are
considered good behavior.  Maybe you believe maintainers should do
that - but that would be surprising for me.

> Thirdly, it's not clear to me which of the following statements is true of
> this change, and it might help the conversation to clarify more precisely:
> a) The code you removed *violates* the C99 spec?

This.  The code in question declares typedefs that are reserved words
in the C99 spec section 7.26.8; not just reserved, they conflict with
actual typedefs from <stdint.h>.

> b) The code you removed is *guaranteed to be pointless* under the C99 spec
> (but does not violate it)?

No.  It is not pointless.  Those declarations occupy reserved words,
and that is not allowed.

> c) The code you removed is *pointless in this particular case* because of a
> combination of the C99 spec and other factors (but might be reasonable in
> other circumstances)?

I don't understand this one, but it doesn't sound like it applies.

Max