Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119563 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 21297 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2023 08:28:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2023 08:28:16 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E1118050B for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:28:15 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS24940 138.201.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from swift.blarg.de (swift.blarg.de [138.201.185.127]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from swift.blarg.de (swift.blarg.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c17:52a8::2]) (Authenticated sender: max) by swift.blarg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAC5B40F72; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:28:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:28:11 +0100 To: Derick Rethans Cc: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: References: <97F04371-A963-4A82-80E0-A94A4DC5B794@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <97F04371-A963-4A82-80E0-A94A4DC5B794@php.net> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] include cleanup RFC declined From: max+php@blarg.de (Max Kellermann) On 2023/02/16 08:59, Derick Rethans wrote: > Secondary votes are irrelevant if the primary one doesn't pass. You may be formally correct (or maybe not, because https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting doesn't really say that). In any case, a vote that reaches supermajority (i.e. it would have been accepted if it had been a separate RFC) is an unambiguous expression on how the community wants the PHP source code to look like. It is safe to say that the PHP community doesn't want any include comments and forward declarations, but wants to split large headers in order to reduce header dependencies. I guess we both don't like the outcome of the vote (for different reasons), but let's not start lawyering pointlessly, and accept the community's will. Max