Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86314
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4Np4N9gEcCLJ34dnCRnXwtVEyD5Xu6fpjXpdzpdfteEaFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4Np4N9gEcCLJ34dnCRnXwtVEyD5Xu6fpjXpdzpdfteEaFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 13:14:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAESVnVohw-vkq7U9jHGLbsagXLqAyH=XTheEZ2FjuYUAcYKqhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve "void" class name
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:16 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.
>
While I agree that we should be wary of anything which break process,
I think we should give some thought (possibly an RFC thought) to
whether or not Documentation-only changes, such as what Nikita
suggested, are actual violations of a feature freeze.

Could one put up an RFC for "void" reservation right up to the release
date of 7.0.0-final? I would say "yes".   Such an RFC is
documentation-only and has no code behind it.  Therefore it would have
no impact on alpha/beta/rc testing.  It's really a langspec RFC more
than a runtime RFC to be quite honest.

-Sara