Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128138 X-Original-To: internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: internals@lists.php.net Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (php-smtp4.php.net [45.112.84.5]) by lists.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 911381A00BC for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2025 00:58:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=php.net; s=mail; t=1752973023; bh=szBibaPQl6VvdlNdGGTa6gn0QDiABEFAHPzyOt+lrqE=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=Ey7fS0OWJDGgr4XOQfOU1+BBCskkB+sIPMHBfXn4kVV+tBleVHgoIeIHEiASqeneR QG1GQn0Bir/xLA4vRZPt3cxwmCMBIyxqWKHwf+1tZAiP88m0kf0yNfdA1Gs8GY2/Uq G2WtayWTQINgifVoenvTV2JofFT+hs76dNXSEHzcXAPjgMCveRUkhxmi3N3ILnnMy9 SU5kobtcr4L2orbg3Jv1o2xvZjnywn3hog3edC36qkquzrNwO3kwKsJWVUKoLfHQrv uw+EMoDsJoQcZf3PFVpM4kBr8kUJOTewuVdPWwDQ7EzsbUvm510DWT5HN9iAHEfrRu Vivh5P5gMl0OA== Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDF8180057 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2025 00:57:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,DMARC_PASS,HTML_MESSAGE, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Virus: Error (Cannot connect to unix socket '/var/run/clamav/clamd.ctl': connect: Connection refused) X-Envelope-From: Received: from avril.gn2.hosting (avril.gn2.hosting [84.19.162.247]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2025 00:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from avril.gn2.hosting (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avril.gn2.hosting (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A9B1C40C7A; Sun, 20 Jul 2025 02:58:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [202.46.151.141]) by avril.gn2.hosting (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D80701C40165; Sun, 20 Jul 2025 02:58:38 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nicksdot.dev; s=default; t=1752973119; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=I2ZI6U9kfC2D+sJgF0KSxv7rU722AJaz766AeUz8pFI=; b=aBPhhRwUJUhP9k7ef7MSs18UAqWvKyLGT2ymWbtuB9kQ/98mVuvsjLwlnt9bITGpvYKxiD A1oINB2XHK2hepNCWqHvhmWPKcMgGVtgLUp5WnlqzGeu+ZOl8cfPyabZawxNHJxUA2Nhr7 xUDVTr4K0DsFGEY6UhcsRNLzBjCdf9fiHuLazosn9X6XL0eERI1gIyv+RbhCTCTr/nsKGV G6I7TzHuduKYuvJpfqH67dS9G3nvni1rKDTwnU5rncWJxNMxo1uBcYuYQsFx6ru/rKNCUB 2D6XtwbZbLBsCfGtX7V7Euw19gPtMBr1KVR2irzCYh/Kg/Ku5xUcCOvKAcUwnw== Message-ID: <5A1B6BCB-97AC-4D50-A38C-C7EE394E4EE1@nicksdot.dev> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_127C0E77-4C79-4EC8-A8EF-FC295243D8F9" Precedence: bulk list-help: list-post: List-Id: internals.lists.php.net x-ms-reactions: disallow Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\)) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly property hooks Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:58:18 +0700 In-Reply-To: Cc: php internals To: Niels Dossche References: <1e8634d7-ac1a-4025-b4e2-1948aabf5251@app.fastmail.com> <13B58381-AA61-4D38-A688-DD9E367ADE6F@nicksdot.dev> <96e0ea70-291e-4f0a-b449-acbaef16c099@bastelstu.be> <76059dd0-d27a-4207-9460-658175f54a99@app.fastmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.600.51.1.1) From: php@nicksdot.dev (Nick) --Apple-Mail=_127C0E77-4C79-4EC8-A8EF-FC295243D8F9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 19. Jul 2025, at 22:46, Niels Dossche = wrote: >=20 > Op zaterdag 19 juli 2025 schreef Rob Landers : > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025, at 14:10, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote: > > > > Hi > > Apologies for the belated reply. I was busy with getting my own=20 > > implementation wrapped up and the thread was so active that I had=20 > > troubles keeping up. > > > > Hi Tim, > > Thanks for taking the time to reply. That said, I would like to = address a concern, not about the content of your message, but the = timing. > > On multiple RFCs, you've joined in once the discussions has wound = down and a vote is immeninent. At this point, many participants have = assumed the key issues are raised and addressed; or at least, reached = the point of constructive impasse. >=20 > Hey >=20 > To be honest, I find your email a bit strange, perhaps even = misdirected. As someone who followed this discussion more quietly, it is = absolutely not my impression that the discussion wounded down already. >=20 > > Reopening settled threads so close to vote tends to disrupt the = process. It forces others to revisit old arguments under time pressure, = giving the late comments disproportionate visibility, and risks stalling = momentum. >=20 > It wasn't closed, so there isn't anything to reopen. Also may I remind = you that the call for an impeding vote is the thing that triggers time = pressure, not Tim's reply. > The goal of having an RFC discussion should be to get consensus during = the discussion phase. >=20 > > I understand that threads move quickly and schedules vary, but if a = concern is important enough to raise, it really helps to do so while the = discussions are actively evolving. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to = engage meaningfully. >=20 > He did raise it. >=20 > Keeping track of the entire ML discussions is hard, and also difficult = time-wise. Tim is one of the people who tries to participate to = basically every RFC, doing his part in making sure we end up with the = best possible outcome for a feature. I'd call that meaningful. I'd also = rather delay a feature than having something sooner that we didn't stand = behind completely. >=20 > > At a certain point, late feedback stops being helpful and starts to = erode the trust and rhythm of the process. >=20 > I wouldn't call it late. > Rushing this RFC to vote to get it into 8.5, despite there being no = clear consensus, is the thing that erodes trust and breaks the rythm of = the process. >=20 > > =E2=80=94 Rob >=20 > Kind regards > Niels Hey Niels, In before: I personally didn=E2=80=99t have a problem with Tim joining = in late.=20 I, however, want to express that I don=E2=80=99t feel anything = productive happens at this point. My personal impression is, there wasn=E2=80=99t anything new added since = the early beginning of the discussion.=20 Everything was brought up early on. If you believe that=E2=80=99s not = the case and I missed something, please point me to the new arguments. So, calling it =E2=80=9Cnot wound down=E2=80=9D feels off to me. And = that=E2=80=99s why I answer now. As someone who is a new participant here, please allow me to ask: When is a discussion allowed to be considered wound down?=20 And, is repeating the same arguments (just by different persons) really = a reason to keep a discussion going? The whole controversy is about `get`.=20 We addressed this by switching to a split vote, because literally all = those concerns/opinions (allow it; don=E2=80=99t allow it; add `init` = instead; cache it; don=E2=80=99t cache it) can for now be = =E2=80=9Caddressed=E2=80=9D with a =E2=80=9Cno=E2=80=9D-vote on `get`, = and then follow up with a new `get` RFC later. Am I wrong? What is this all about now? What are we doing now?=20 Do we keep repeating the same arguments, and disallow bringing this to = vote at all? Even though like literally everyone seems to be on board = with =E2=80=9C`set` is ok=E2=80=9D?=20 Or are we allowed to move on with a vote? > despite there being no clear consensus The clear consensus seems to be that `set` should be allowed. That=E2=80=99= s why we adjusted the vote. I repeat: everyone with a problem (any kind) on `get` can vote =E2=80=9Cno= =E2=80=9D on `get` and =E2=80=9Cyes=E2=80=9D on `set`. =E2=80=94 Again, this is nothing specifically towards Tim. Cheers, Nick= --Apple-Mail=_127C0E77-4C79-4EC8-A8EF-FC295243D8F9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On 19. Jul = 2025, at 22:46, Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@gmail.com> = wrote:

Op zaterdag 19 = juli 2025 schreef Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>:
> On Fri, = Jul 18, 2025, at 14:10, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
>
> = Hi
> Apologies for the belated reply. I was busy with getting my = own 
> implementation wrapped up and the thread was so active = that I had 
> troubles keeping up.
>
> Hi = Tim,
> Thanks for taking the time to reply. That said, I would = like to address a concern, not about the content of your message, but = the timing.
> On multiple RFCs, you've joined in once the = discussions has wound down and a vote is immeninent. At this point, many = participants have assumed the key issues are raised and addressed; or at = least, reached the point of constructive impasse.

Hey

To = be honest, I find your email a bit strange, perhaps even misdirected. As = someone who followed this discussion more quietly, it is absolutely not = my impression that the discussion wounded down already.

> = Reopening settled threads so close to vote tends to disrupt the process. = It forces others to revisit old arguments under time pressure, giving = the late comments disproportionate visibility, and risks stalling = momentum.

It wasn't closed, so there isn't anything to reopen. = Also may I remind you that the call for an impeding vote is the thing = that triggers time pressure, not Tim's reply.
The goal of having an = RFC discussion should be to get consensus during the discussion = phase.

> I understand that threads move quickly and schedules = vary, but if a concern is important enough to raise, it really helps to = do so while the discussions are actively evolving. Otherwise, it becomes = difficult to engage meaningfully.

He did raise it.

Keeping = track of the entire ML discussions is hard, and also difficult = time-wise. Tim is one of the people who tries to participate to = basically every RFC, doing his part in making sure we end up with the = best possible outcome for a feature. I'd call that meaningful. I'd also = rather delay a feature than having something sooner that we didn't stand = behind completely.

> At a certain point, late feedback stops = being helpful and starts to erode the trust and rhythm of the = process.

I wouldn't call it late.
Rushing this RFC to vote to = get it into 8.5, despite there being no clear consensus, is the thing = that erodes trust and breaks the rythm of the process.

> =E2=80=94= Rob

Kind regards
Niels

Hey = Niels,


In before: I personally didn=E2=80=99t = have a problem with Tim joining in late. 


I, however, want to express that I = don=E2=80=99t feel anything productive happens at this point.


My personal impression is, there = wasn=E2=80=99t anything new added since the early beginning of the = discussion. 

Everything = was brought up early on. If you believe that=E2=80=99s not the case and = I missed something, please point me to the new arguments.


So, calling it =E2=80=9Cnot wound = down=E2=80=9D feels off to me. And that=E2=80=99s why I answer = now.


As someone who is a new participant = here, please allow me to ask:


When is a discussion allowed to be = considered wound down? 

And, is = repeating the same arguments (just by different persons) really a reason = to keep a discussion going?


The whole controversy is about = `get`. 


We addressed this by switching to a = split vote, because literally all those concerns/opinions (allow it; = don=E2=80=99t allow it; add `init` instead; cache it; don=E2=80=99t = cache it) can for now be =E2=80=9Caddressed=E2=80=9D with a = =E2=80=9Cno=E2=80=9D-vote on `get`, and then follow up with a = new `get` RFC later.


Am I wrong?


What is this all = about now?

What are we doing now? 


Do we keep repeating the same = arguments, and disallow bringing this to vote at all? Even though like = literally everyone seems to be on board with =E2=80=9C`set` is = ok=E2=80=9D? 

Or are we = allowed to move on with a vote?


despite = there being no clear consensus


The clear consensus seems to be that = `set` should be allowed. That=E2=80=99s why we adjusted the vote.

I repeat: everyone with a problem (any = kind) on `get` can vote =E2=80=9Cno=E2=80=9D on `get` and =E2=80=9Cyes=E2=80= =9D on `set`.


=E2=80=94


Again, this is = nothing specifically towards Tim.


Cheers,

Nick

= --Apple-Mail=_127C0E77-4C79-4EC8-A8EF-FC295243D8F9--