Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65260
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com does not designate 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender)
References: <op.wq746rv5idpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net>	<op.wrmidlpiidpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net>
	<debcd9bb-79f3-4b2c-aa66-9461018959c9@email.android.com>	<op.wrmkyvlwidpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net>
	<1460659e-237d-4c7c-8cfa-523ec857d646@email.android.com>	<be26f8067c25e21448eb7f3fc21809b0@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU4y_K3FP0KLiLv=a20n1DvPihvknGwYDaX8Vto1DMr3iw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU4y_K3FP0KLiLv=a20n1DvPihvknGwYDaX8Vto1DMr3iw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQFvKJzzK5NHNcd9o6NPNThI8li5VwHdwAgiAgQ+MdAB/AW5LgIN5nOxAarVJb8CK4XPgJi+ehIw
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:47:54 +0200
Message-ID: <d056d255115ffebb71281b5ba17a214c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Knowles <alan@roojs.com>, Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Deprecate and remove calls from incompatible context
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre.php@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 5:46 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Alan Knowles; Gustavo Lopes; PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Deprecate and remove calls from
incompatible
> context
>
> hi Zeev,
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
>
> > Can you explain why you think it's a major BC break?  The RFC
> > suggested that the BC break would be minimal and that the likelihood a
> > lot of people used it is very low.  If you think differently and share
> > it it might put it in a different light.
>
> Problem is that we do not allow BC break in 5.5, at all, minor or not.
> Minor vs major BC is all relative, a minor BC for someone can create
large issues
> for someone else, that's why we do not allow BC, in general. Killing
some
> outdated "security" features however may fit better, but I am really not
sure
> this one is worse the risk.

What does it mean then?  That implementing this RFC waits for 6.0 or that
it was invalid in the first place?

Zeev