Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128677
Message-ID: <c0e32086-ed5a-404d-b0b5-fd3d22c34074@bastelstu.be>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 21:20:53 +0200
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Soft-Deprecate __sleep() and __wakeup()
To: Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>,
 Daniel Scherzer <daniel.e.scherzer@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAOWwgpk1Z_bns=Z55TqpYOBXvBGpurMfjTGPSgQ6Uf5QXfLOjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALaXqqRBRJdMO0Jvguj57M5U2nTVn_3DK6bB433RBmWvHuA-wA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgp==2KHZGNHQ3x7pSP-Y6cGhdy7nqEpxPCHKpyCv3vcdLg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <CAOWwgp==2KHZGNHQ3x7pSP-Y6cGhdy7nqEpxPCHKpyCv3vcdLg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

On 9/11/25 18:51, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> As a corollary to your message, I'm wondering what would be the earliest we
> could open the vote?
> Our policy on the topic says:
> 
>> There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
>> language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
>> Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week.
> 
> 
> Should it be one or two weeks?

Clarifying this is part of my current policy RFC. The established 
consensus (and expectations from users) is at least 2 weeks of 
discussion for everything.

That would be Friday, September 19th 2025 17:54 Europe/Paris then.

Even when taking into account the expectation that changes to the RFC 
text requires additional discussion (my policy RFC is also formalizing 
that), I'd say that the changes you have made to the RFC are only 
clarification that do not change the actual proposal, which would be a 
minor change under the definition of my proposal.

Therefore I'd say that starting the vote at any point after the above 
mentioned time is strictly within policy.

> (I don’t expect to convince Tim
> either way, so from my side that part of the discussion is done. ;) )

I agree.

I'm also okay with the updated RFC text. While there are still some 
things that I believe could be presented differently (as I outlined in 
my email earlier today), it reasonable fairly represents the situation.

I still disagree with the proposal itself, of course :-)

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus