Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85259
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <francois@php.net>
To: "'Dan Ackroyd'" <danack@basereality.com>
Cc: "'Zeev Suraski'" <zeev@zend.com>,
	"'PHP internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <885a29db28bc96b2d3cd2ac96907e39f@mail.gmail.com>	<077401d06268$2b597c30$820c7490$@php.net> <CA+kxMuRG7RV74uD=pJxB2M3LS9Ty1xB-+TN_ddMpYg4xgtjpwA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuRG7RV74uD=pJxB2M3LS9Ty1xB-+TN_ddMpYg4xgtjpwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 02:51:20 +0100
Message-ID: <07c201d062b0$5d766230$18632690$@php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQIqkhECzNWHmquFHEtotR9EeyhR/QG9QlIPAT0YZWucWFs20A==
Content-Language: fr
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Question/comment about the Array to String conversion RFC
From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=)

> De : Dan Ackroyd [mailto:danack@basereality.com]
>=20
> On 19 March 2015 at 17:14, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> > As you may have noticed if you had a look at the RFC or twitter, I =
have
> decided to follow people's suggestion.
> > Please note that the switch from E_DEPRECATED to fatal error won't
> require any new RFC/discussion/vote
> > as the  fatal error is considered as approved. I just introduce an
> E_DEPRECATED phase for 7.0.
>=20
> What. The. Fuck.
>=20
> You edited the RFC after the voting had closed? You are not allowed to
> edit an RFC after the voting has occurred.
>=20
> I don't think we have any rules in place to deal with this; I don't
> think anyone anticipated that anyone would actually try to do this. We
> obviously need an explicit rule for this, but that can wait until 7.0
> is closer to shipping, and we can contemplate RFC rules at leisure.
>=20
> For now, please revert the changes your made to the RFC after it had
> been closed. And whoever has the power to remove karma, please take
> the power to edit RFCs away from Francois once that has been done.
>=20
> > Array to string conversion will raise E_DEPRECATED in 7.0, and, =
then, fatal
> error in 7.1 or 7.2.
>=20
> You are being dumb here as well. We try to avoid breaking code in
> point releases. This BC break can only be done at a major version.

OK. OK. I revert the RFC to its original version. It will raise =
E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR in 7.0.

Before you burn me alive, here's what happened : I was in Africa during =
the last 3 weeks, and didn't have any way to post to the list. I just =
had one hour of internet access during all this time and wanted to use =
it to close the vote, but I saw Zeev's and Julien's comments asking for =
a deprecate phase in 7.0, and thought that, if there was a rule, I had =
to respect it. I am not as dumb as you may think, I know BC breaks must =
be introduced in major versions, but the requests to do so were coming =
from people who are supposed to know the rules better than I. So, I =
added a line at the end of the RFC and sent a private message via =
twitter to Zeev asking him to forward the information to the list to =
discuss whether this change after vote was considered as acceptable or =
not. Unfortunately, I discovered his reply this morning saying he =
preferred me to do it when I would be back. That's why you discovered it =
today. So, I probably shouldn't have modified the RFC when I closed the =
vote, but there was a context.

So, as it is not clear whether there's a rule saying that everything =
must be deprecated before being removed, I will implement the RFC =
exactly as it was voted.

And let me apologize for the misunderstandings I have caused.

Regards

Fran=C3=A7ois






I thought introducing a temporary E_DEPRECATED phase would be acceptable =
to everyone and I would have asked the list but I could not send emails =
from where I was during the last 2 weeks. I just had web access during 1 =
hour, read Zeev's and Julien's comments, added one line in the RFC, and =
then sent a twitter message to Zeev asking him to forward the change to =
the list so that it could be judged acceptable or not. Unfortunately,=20
was in Africa during the last 2 weekssatisfy everyone but it seems it is =
not the case.

Now, what should I say when people who are supposed to know the process =
better than me ask to delay the BC break to 7.1 or 7.2 ?






>=20
> cheers
> Dan
>=20
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php