Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128545
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <bHOrFNomgRBQ5FCRh1oK4cXbtPudF22WfgTqtqUIO7SsTMRulRakqBgOvRRFfm8xdDNYFr0AIV6NZ_r5p_h4E5Nz-LZLwZoBw0S9J9NALcA=@gpb.moe>
 <Yy5Yk-VCtT880CdOOXp4RO1DsMnUmDP0n2JJ59nRBlQRTeTv3zQo3ERkMpQkwukArEdpCX7P49_oc9DZbxa0ZfzgO4Q4Z_KrCYpgIgLS7PM=@gpb.moe>
 <CAOWwgpkO6yKrp5oosfRXW0bcxc4-5FEPf4kOuMVBtjqb3PshDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <b2dcca97-7bc3-43f3-b8ac-082966e5dfb7@gmx.de> <CAGBsUreXOKpQJjxmNuYsEiSF6hm8usvacSGLW8OZ2779ux1UMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <UDQI3BysYR7U59YKguc2eSxPKwyYQjI8gRHJL5mVEWmsC5hQedh6eK5Mu5VL2lf678fpdGAOqI2AnkvGGqb9JLdz2bVBoGbKji7oVhc0vv8=@gpb.moe>
In-Reply-To: <UDQI3BysYR7U59YKguc2eSxPKwyYQjI8gRHJL5mVEWmsC5hQedh6eK5Mu5VL2lf678fpdGAOqI2AnkvGGqb9JLdz2bVBoGbKji7oVhc0vv8=@gpb.moe>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:14:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEKnhAEHz9xsTNo=8TvT5G-WN4c8zrD9pC3M6Zyg1tdmFcswBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecations for PHP 8.5
To: "Gina P. Banyard" <internals@gpb.moe>
Cc: Kamil Tekiela <tekiela246@gmail.com>, "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>, 
	Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f48d7f063d213fe6"
From: bukka@php.net (Jakub Zelenka)

--000000000000f48d7f063d213fe6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 12:58=E2=80=AFPM Gina P. Banyard <internals@gpb.moe=
> wrote:

> I don't mind splitting the PR into 2 different ones, one for __sleep()
> and the other one for __wakeup(), but once again people are complaining
> that a 2/3 threshold is seemingly not enough when it is not necessarily a=
n
> easy threshold to pass.
>

The complaint wasn't that the 2/3 threshold is not enough. It was that the
RFC missed some important points and was in that sense misleading. The
result was just narrowly passing the threshold. So the point was that it's
quite likely it wouldn't pass it if the RFC description was correct.

Regards

Jakub

--000000000000f48d7f063d213fe6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi,</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 12:58=E2=
=80=AFPM Gina P. Banyard &lt;internals@gpb.moe&gt; wrote:</div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px sol=
id rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-=
serif;font-size:14px"><div dir=3D"auto">I don&#39;t mind splitting the PR i=
nto 2 different ones, one for <code>__sleep()</code> and the other one for =
<code>__wakeup()</code>, but once again people are complaining that a 2/3 t=
hreshold is seemingly not enough when it is not necessarily an easy thresho=
ld to pass.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The complaint wasn&=
#39;t that the=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1=
4px">2/3 threshold is not enough. It was that the RFC missed some important=
 points and was in that sense misleading. The result was just narrowly pass=
ing the threshold. So the point was that it&#39;s quite likely it wouldn=
9;t pass it if the RFC description was correct.</span></div><div><span styl=
e=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br></span></div><div><sp=
an style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">Regards</span></di=
v><div><span style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br></sp=
an></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">J=
akub</span></div><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div>
</div>

--000000000000f48d7f063d213fe6--