Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120236 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 63373 invoked from network); 11 May 2023 17:06:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 11 May 2023 17:06:57 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86FA180545 for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 10:06:56 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE, 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-ed1-f46.google.com (mail-ed1-f46.google.com [209.85.208.46]) (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 ; Thu, 11 May 2023 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-50bd2d7ba74so81384167a12.1 for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=basereality-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1683824815; x=1686416815; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Uo8WQAeIOo9JvP0kXkdh/xhJVYNEHFdxiNAvKKlo7+c=; b=Fszl2hdqQBQ4bWuszofSONgEG/PHJil2uW6oXZkpni71DaYMk6jT922qq2WTeua6rE 2XVlTqCmtyJp1HAGj4B+vCgza/SKGjxOlql+QAT7pA90/07ItvVB8lL1g2U3qhVR25qN NiyXnd+UzncwgirBWlBCPZSU8tRFdtoNJzA1b//R49h99qnUgGcLcBevGfGUny11KdnY 85CfwJckbJyh4MxUwbjDP4TYFPLRZRu2wjWf2mmkWmZbDOhChrqna1jQBHKyboK7y6Fs Kn3WseDpKUJbYsq21CSvaDaLceZvW62lktRtlYg8NuGIcsTY1z0iuFH1EOpngHwZ5nG9 sf8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683824815; x=1686416815; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Uo8WQAeIOo9JvP0kXkdh/xhJVYNEHFdxiNAvKKlo7+c=; b=dHrojUDQve7lmCfjT1cRAT/MksDtQCtJXEUVuWihTJwMNDrAuGEZfjYYnDWy3tEc9C mwo1Yh4tu5SKhwbz+HzxQ+kHOP4ndS9j9Tlmdg3fmC3olANdELJ0UTj5CYWP636uTZcC 0PFYCdqD2sr5qZByQMu0L7Sw3gQF3h/QCayl4HC6loOgHLbPyMa5/xhkbDnapkRKqiBU kXuZT9vIcM39v/4gMIib5YX0cW1sLDeLNV6LCt9c3XX8qT5EQT4RMYWRf3FhFax5nyqn L5WggbBfGIYSqCv7S2CBWO/YpoVNJdcwKfq9RKXSe3ojQFgWpi9/IKGAYTHmtuuayxte a+xg== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzDnYbBc3JO2MjrYoliiSQ4fjYuQjpPK/4v6j1UsNiODhVfnp0Y +lBE2Mym0rCQHgrdTqGGY3Q8WHWDPslG0B8Vb0/EZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ50wtq9OXOZDMfhPt9NP4D0/lhNHK2FNlqkg7GwZxXNY89Ld4C264bB/oGWkkdaLIN8dP9D7bcS1EJsBGwV0WM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:8a08:b0:969:2df9:a0dd with SMTP id sc8-20020a1709078a0800b009692df9a0ddmr12618422ejc.25.1683824815102; Thu, 11 May 2023 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9ab0173f-a6f2-66f6-3ab3-d5f0c44feb05@bastelstu.be> In-Reply-To: <9ab0173f-a6f2-66f6-3ab3-d5f0c44feb05@bastelstu.be> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 18:06:44 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= , Larry Garfield , php internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Deprecate functions with overloaded signatures From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd) On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 10:36, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote: > > I believe this vote format ("three options") is not really compatible > with the voting rules (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting). > > For example it's not entirely clear what would happen here: > > 5 votes to deprecate in 8.3 / remove 9.0 > 4 votes to deprecate in 9.0 / remove 10.0 > 4 votes to not deprecate. The RFC author could just say that yes votes for deprecation and eventual removal will be added together, with the timescale being a preference vote. I think the only people who would object to that are people who would vote yes to "deprecate and remove" but only if it matches their preferred timescale, and would otherwise vote no. Which probably isn't a thing. cheers Dan Ack