Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65301 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 92573 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 20:05:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 20:05:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.169 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.217.169 mail-lb0-f169.google.com Received: from [209.85.217.169] ([209.85.217.169:54682] helo=mail-lb0-f169.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A2/BC-28517-50AD6015 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:05:27 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id m4so4459074lbo.14 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:05:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VHFhJnyXPx7fiBI9HEmK4Oj7HodYxL3B20FePmvpv80=; b=irxA2ksg05KRZJYrfGlP99hL/+8k57ymNI2HNF2ifsHXA79EVW2q0NQV7wKpS+F/QP 1XLX29stmoMqnB/JAwudhwg2++qiu/lyZXA/DQKaSRybbDEDgdCZENXTRdsUc1DtrT1F 4LtUsSQO6S67x4ZjP29VqgeJ0sjQAA5zxUTax+xROJHMqRznJHmD2qoqvUdpNKkJhVv4 b231agArQwAMWlAGhcO2f5SQ09lDGy+fXm7YdmxArflOWgiGzp0z32hbDrM62vcdsqCc HT2BvJGYFXwuwfLlFNY4pkeMQ940jP073qUoFzNJNKkdootr5kmujhuH0Vtnw3mhAl2E nj4g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.144.130 with SMTP id sm2mr14316629lab.49.1359403521751; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.2.69 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.2.69 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:05:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5106D468.1050006@sugarcrm.com> References: <1460659e-237d-4c7c-8cfa-523ec857d646@email.android.com> <5106D468.1050006@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:05:21 +0100 Message-ID: To: Stas Malyshev Cc: PHP internals , Gustavo Lopes , Alan Knowles , Zeev Suraski Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f2348a9053b4c04d45eccf8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Deprecate and remove calls from incompatible context From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) --e89a8f2348a9053b4c04d45eccf8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Jan 28, 2013 8:41 PM, "Stas Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > If we introduced BC breaks other than those, then we'd to review them > > and see why they have been introduced. But one thing is clear: we do > > not allow BC breaks between 5.x and 5.x+1. > > We need a better definition of BC break then. Is deprecating an existing > feature BC break? No, New warnings/notices are not BC breaks, fatal errors are. --e89a8f2348a9053b4c04d45eccf8--