Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86309
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4Np4N9gEcCLJ34dnCRnXwtVEyD5Xu6fpjXpdzpdfteEaFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4Np4N9gEcCLJ34dnCRnXwtVEyD5Xu6fpjXpdzpdfteEaFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 10:21:58 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4No9C8-vv+6S8Dp+9tVyVV4wHF9BAPGjTbhH1hFOLLi1_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve "void" class name
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why
> should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve
> typename RFC were unanimous.
>
> Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already
> have an alpha* by now and we are proposing new changes?. Please stick
> to our established rules and release timetables as much as possible,
> thank you.

On a related note it is unclear what BC breaks are exactly allowed in
minor releases. Adding new reserved types is a BC break, but it was
done in PHP 5.4 with `callable`. We should solidify what we do and do
not allow in minor releases for the PHP 7 release series.