Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130222 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 4B0821A00BC for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:49:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=php.net; s=mail; t=1772459400; bh=oICKx1As8wjk8KiZznt3+WVzmQRk74wyc8ilyw0npts=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=oARnQmWm03bXLcqbsDfxjyADp0uBklJ9c5FdeS+UbRK4sLD/x48nURSaFc3x3Fjo4 HQuqdHppE4qeXIMba40b0eaVuJ9PsRQdcrgmDafSW5BgVRf6+Em9+33Zs1ABKgLByP B+t2D5sKGnZqJQxKDHGmyBaP28OQzM2niIMcwrF/hcVu4SuPvemPSCF6U+PN9OR7IE Sl/9RPhCWzz+fKYhE3d6sJ2Zo5ws66HeIg084zY89iOQs6Xldkcnz6dPVetozxCC74 Ill5cORHXS4SOHspkmnkZZ8/tbN7ZdqLH64IrbOIXSwAvNHQoW+Kg0MCR9AibLoU85 XjX+bP1XQHSwQ== Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE24F180062 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:49:54 +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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,DMARC_PASS,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail.gna.ch (darkcity.gna.ch [84.234.28.114]) (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 ; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gna.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156502380A44 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:49:47 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=cschneid.com; s=default; t=1772459387; bh=oICKx1As8wjk8KiZznt3+WVzmQRk74wyc8ilyw0npts=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To; b=pE9SRNxUsSVhig1RrDzTmuXC3lo0AgfW9iHOAOq/VxG1wq/Jq3gjl1jrXrbS2+OFR vmYJB7oV6ONjSp8efkIt0Bl/GgALj5nDBS2pHkeVeX7u6CKAhLIXCnWom82nvi0sW/ 0AnMD0cRFwHkP9tob7BirfyJsD/pIR2vNlj4RmdM= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gna.ch Received: from mail.gna.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.gna.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Il_yU7hqvOub for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:49:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [194.169.219.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.gna.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57AB82380A41 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:49:46 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=cschneid.com; s=default; t=1772459386; bh=oICKx1As8wjk8KiZznt3+WVzmQRk74wyc8ilyw0npts=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To; b=iMLsWC45BPuPTp7oJWeK2ETqyXVXWJx8xISK2jaf5VsAcjBUrAw27touZWqHx/a5s pXL/Ng7ft8KsaZm4WdVp1XgMPxoqs6e46/NtDkFlbYCeUSbPdf8RP5JQOs5thAUyoI y+A8Qp3/7KLwwG6rk1A7FpPaoST9hC6Dwj4xlB40= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: List-Id: x-ms-reactions: disallow Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\)) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Exempt input type and value validation from BC Break policy Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:49:45 +0100 References: To: PHP internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.400.21) From: cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider) Am 02.03.2026 um 14:13 schrieb Gina P. Banyard : > I would like to propose a short policy RFC to formally exempt input = type and value validation from our BC Break policy. > The current wording of the policy already permits us to add validation = of inputs, but recently any such changes have been asked to submit an = RFC instead. > We believe that requiring an RFC for this type of change is = detrimental and adds unnecessary friction for routine maintenance = activity and new contributors. >=20 > RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/policy-exempt-type-value-error-bc-policy Playing my favourite broken record: Can we please state that additions of Exceptions should (in most cases) = go through an E_WARNING phase to allow a time window to fix code before = changing the behaviour? I'm fine with not needing an RFC for such changes as long as the = migration process is being respected. Regards, - Chris =20=