Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65265
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.21 cause and error)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com>, "Pierre Joye" <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: "Alan Knowles" <alan@roojs.com>, "PHP Internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
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>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:56:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: =?utf-8?Q?N=C3=BAcleo_de_Eng=2E_Biom=C3=A9di?=
 =?utf-8?Q?ca_do_I=2ES=2ET=2E?=
Message-ID: <op.wrmo80qgidpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU4y_K3FP0KLiLv=a20n1DvPihvknGwYDaX8Vto1DMr3iw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.12 (Linux)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Deprecate and remove calls from incompatible
 context
From: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt ("Gustavo Lopes")

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:45:43 +0100, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> 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 Killing some outdated "security" features however may fit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.
>

Sorry, this objection simply is not timely.

In order for this voting thing to work, votes have to have a strong degree  
of finality. It would have to take a pretty strong new fact to overcome  
that finality. Otherwise, people will not have incentives to look *early*  
at the RFCs and the discussions will never end.

In any case, the interpretation of the release process RFC as to BC breaks  
has been rather lax. 5.4 introduced pretty disruptive BC breaks like  
eliminating call-time pass-by-ref and changing the default encoding for  
htmlentities/htmlspecialchars and new keywords. 5.5 will also introduce a  
few (look at UPGRADING).

-- 
Gustavo Lopes