Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120238
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 07:52:21 +0100
To: internals@lists.php.net
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuT_DsqqH6-pq+P7ZjddEpCetHhYQvuDkAd4_oNSh7ePpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5C8xXtCVHaxwzmAW_eBxp_D6p7kww9svND=3AEeC9X6--YXg@mail.gmail.com> <ffa8138a-f1b6-3926-bc2f-558ffca344b0@gmail.com> <CAH5C8xXhCkZt7bBs7YcjMBRYM5ggu7W47huCCbVwb2-q_zFnBA@mail.gmail.com> <e3eba528-a015-48be-ba8e-fa71d512aa33@app.fastmail.com> <CAH5C8xVJPXx8Mk5WViOiqBe-094zTbtSO6pkZGx2BeGKbaXVoA@mail.gmail.com> <9ab0173f-a6f2-66f6-3ab3-d5f0c44feb05@bastelstu.be> <CA+kxMuT_DsqqH6-pq+P7ZjddEpCetHhYQvuDkAd4_oNSh7ePpA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D222D279-03C2-413A-A65A-67EA96EFBF88@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_=5BPHP-DEV=5D_=5BRFC=5D_=5BDiscussion=5D_Deprec?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ate_functions_with_overloaded_signatures?=
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 11 May 2023 18:06:44 BST, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality=2Ecom> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 10:36, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu=2Ebe> wro=
te:
>>
>> I believe this vote format ("three options") is not really compatible
>> with the voting rules (https://wiki=2Ephp=2Enet/rfc/voting)=2E
>>
>> For example it's not entirely clear what would happen here:
>>
>> 5 votes to deprecate in 8=2E3 / remove 9=2E0
>> 4 votes to deprecate in 9=2E0 / remove 10=2E0
>> 4 votes to not deprecate=2E
>
>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=2E
>
>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=2E Which probably isn't
>a thing=2E


I think it's actually very likely that voters would want to express "depre=
cate, but do not remove before 10=2E0"=2E Treating those votes as "generall=
y in favour, so enough to approve removal in 9=2E0" doesn't seem appropriat=
e=2E

The other way around - "deprecate, but do not remove later than 9=2E0" - s=
eems less likely=2E I also don't see any reason to delay the deprecation - =
the whole point of the longer period is to give people more notice=2E

So I would suggest rewording the options slightly:

a) Deprecate in 8=2E3, remove in either 9=2E0 or 10=2E0
b) Deprecate in 8=2E3, remove in 10=2E0
c) Do not deprecate

Now if the votes are a:5, b:4, c:4, we can say:

- 9 people voted for deprecation in 8=2E3, vs 4 against
- only 5 voted for removal in 9=2E0, vs 8 against
- 9 voted for removal in 10=2E0, vs 4 against

So we conclude that we should deprecate in 8=2E3, and remove in 10=2E0


The suggestion to narrow it down to a yes/no proposal in the discussion ph=
ase is probably even better, though=2E

Regards,

--=20
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]