Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94037
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_=Pbz7kTrffwBeerwyM=DfVPtmtUBST_SUdzOs_E6ivvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6c03dafd-093a-0087-6312-96fede93c5f0@gmail.com>
	<BY2PR0201MB17843F26C4E02181DDDED285BF540@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<1c437efe-7f1d-629f-cfbc-41cbcda38d89@fleshgrinder.com>
	<CAEZPtU6PonqQcT5sQf1FUd-Vwp-qcZ5r0jzL-Cdn3r3=wpLJDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55d87b00-ebcd-6132-ea29-1978236930e7@seld.be>
	<1c89124f-03fc-65dd-f6ce-dbf23e888ce6@gmail.com>
	<CAL=_i_=Pbz7kTrffwBeerwyM=DfVPtmtUBST_SUdzOs_E6ivvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:20:33 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6WJS01M31Bzar-C8J-PeRQ4yYNzM7ryMsGHEnLOWP0-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c04f7184cbd3a05355f3c71
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--94eb2c04f7184cbd3a05355f3c71
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jun 16, 2016 11:41 AM, "Joe Watkins" <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:
>
> Morning,
>
>    > This would keep the "BC promise" intact instead of going back to
> cowboy php days.
>
>    > Please don't let's make it harder to go from 7.0 to 7.1 than it was
> from 5.6 to 7.0.
>
>    Can we reduce hyperbole to nil, please.
>
>    Before work starts on PHP 8, we need to have something worth branching,
> just as we needed for 7, and 6.
>
>    There is no sense in which the too_few_args vote was unfair, biased, or
> anything comparable to "the old days" (it wasn't committed without public
> consultation).
>
>    The majority have decided that the *extremely minor* BC break is worth
> the tradeoff.

We have cases where our view on a problem and its impact was wrong, totally
wrong.

The rfc process allows veto even if accepted. I am very worried about how
things were done here. See my reply to Dmitry's approval mail for the
reasons.

--94eb2c04f7184cbd3a05355f3c71--