Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85673 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 87499 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2015 20:32:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Apr 2015 20:32:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dennis@birkholz.biz; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dennis@birkholz.biz; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain birkholz.biz does not designate 144.76.185.252 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dennis@birkholz.biz X-Host-Fingerprint: 144.76.185.252 mx01.nexxes.net Received: from [144.76.185.252] ([144.76.185.252:42491] helo=mx01.nexxes.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7B/1D-21906-6F55C155 for ; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:32:55 -0500 Received: from [137.226.183.192] (ip3192.saw.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.183.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: db220660-p0g-1@packages.nexxes.net) by mx01.nexxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7406D4808D3; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:32:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <551C55F3.8080400@birkholz.biz> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 22:32:51 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Trevor Suarez , internals@lists.php.net References: <551BC7CF.3080309@birkholz.biz> <551C44C7.6060108@gmail.com> <551C48AC.3090908@birkholz.biz> <551C4A60.2050805@gmail.com> <551C5045.3010405@birkholz.biz> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] What's our official stance on small self-contained additions in a micro version From: dennis@birkholz.biz (Dennis Birkholz) Hi Trevor, Am 01.04.2015 um 22:19 schrieb Trevor Suarez: > Author of PR https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1145 here. > > I'm really quite sorry. I didn't mean to create a mess here. I was just > trying to contribute. :/ I am sorry I caused this mess by using your PR (or better: the acceptance of it without noticing the internals thread regarding it) as an example. I hope this does not prevent you from contributing in the future. > Unfortunately, whether or not an RFC was necessary for an addition like > this wasn't very clear. I'm an internals noob, so I simply tried to follow > the flow of the addition of the similar method > `DateTimeImmutable::createFromMutable()` that was added, without RFC > (correct me if I'm wrong), in 5.6.0: > http://php.net/manual/en/datetimeimmutable.createfrommutable.php I think DateTimeInterface and DateTimeImmutable where added in 5.6, but I don't know if there was some RFC for that, I did not follow the internals list back then. > Unfortunately, I'm not a huge fan of Derick's `createFromMutable()` method > (why isn't there just a `createFromInstance()` or `copy()` method of some > sort), but I tried to best follow the current design with my proposal and > pull request. I would really like you to create an RFC that uses a single method in the DateTimeInterface for this kind of cloning. Greets Dennis