Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127594
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:39:44 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <fa5a84e6-b5ad-43b8-b56f-f8f52ddcbc6d@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOWwgpmWm5i-KmSAfLBQ-VN7t7SnbvGBoogT0b-fVZGhTRTsnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMzRQTcN0VpQ_Ap_3WokH+aXp+EuSs=j=FLAL-43-0XgzgNtjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpmWm5i-KmSAfLBQ-VN7t7SnbvGBoogT0b-fVZGhTRTsnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Clone with v2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025, at 10:48 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> Le mer. 4 juin 2025 =C3=A0 17:15, Volker Dusch <volker@tideways-gmbh.c=
om> a =C3=A9crit :
>> Hi everyone,
>>=20
>> We just opened the vote for the "Clone with v2" RFC:
>>=20
>> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/clone_with_v2
>> Discussion: https://externals.io/message/127353
>> PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/18747
>>=20
>> As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required.
>> Voting ends 2025-06-18 at 15:30:00 UTC.
>>=20
>> Kind regards,
>> Volker
>
>
> While I appreciate the effort that went into the proposal and I value=20
> the technical discussions we've had, I feel the transition to the=20
> voting phase comes a bit too soon. It seemed like the conversation=20
> still had room to evolve, and seeing the vote opened while I (and=20
> possibly others) were still forming or refining thoughts is=20
> demotivating.
>
> Moments like this make it clear how emotionally demanding participatin=
g=20
> on internals can be. I believe strongly in the importance of open,=20
> respectful, and inclusive dialogue - especially when we disagree.=20
> That=E2=80=99s how we move things forward, even if it takes time.
>
> I=E2=80=99m sharing this not to single anyone out, but because I care =
about=20
> this space and I hope we can keep making the process more=20
> collaborative, especially around timing and closure of discussions.=20
>
> Nicolas

While I support this RFC and want to see it in, I have voted no for 2 re=
asons.

1. The switch to an array parameter, as previously noted, is a major DX =
loss for unclear benefit.  It's just all around a worse design, and "may=
be we can change how arrays work in the future" is not an answer.

2. There was still an active discussion with Nicolas going on that seeme=
d rather important.  Opening the vote while that was still going on is, =
as noted above, problematic.

--Larry Garfield