Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94063
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain daveyshafik.com from 209.85.220.174 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: me@daveyshafik.com
In-Reply-To: <cb48db47-3bd4-0e15-add4-2c81dc4da7d7@zend.com>
References: <CY1PR0201MB1786A3D8145ADCF4225E8C4ABF560@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEZPtU4cTk5B_414cTou_LaGa0Tg_h=7fmtsLcNhNNYt69sUPw@mail.gmail.com> <cb48db47-3bd4-0e15-add4-2c81dc4da7d7@zend.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:02:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CANaX5ndSiV-09aa_MA27QwGXz_Nm7=FVGsTsymrbUcN=h3P7Jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114a7ece17d26e05356ee9a6
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Accepted] Replace "Missing argument" warning
 with "Too few arguments" exception
From: davey@php.net (Davey Shafik)

--001a114a7ece17d26e05356ee9a6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

> Hi Pierre,
>
>
> On 06/16/2016 09:18 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Dmitry
>>
>> I am sorry but I have to ask to wait before merging it.
>>
>>
> Sorry, but this is already merged.
>
>>
>> It is definitely not clear that:
>>
>> . The rfc was valid to begin with due to the short discussion time
>> . This BC is acceptable for 7.x
>>
>> I think things like things can be prevented by following the relatively
>> simple rfc process and having a more clear way to define what is acceptable
>> as BC.
>>
>>
> I think, the decision of the majority of voters, told that the BC break is
> minor and acceptable for 7.1.
> The only mistake was in shorten discussion period.
>
>>
>> I think the RMs should step in here.
>>
>>
> Yeah, I suppose, RMs may have a right to take a decision and revert this.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.


As I said in earlier discussions, the fact we cannot measure potential
impact makes me very hesitant to include this change. Again: if I were the
sole RM I _would_ try to veto this change.

I understand the desire to get this out in 7.1, we will never have a time
when 7.x has less users than it does now, and we don't want to wait for 8.0.

IMO a better compromise would have been to add an E_DEPRECATED noting that
it would be changed in 7.2, and then doing so. Is something like this still
a possibility?

I know that Joe feels strongly about this particular change being merged
in, and it is done now. We should address similar situations moving
forward, and move on.

- Davey

--001a114a7ece17d26e05356ee9a6--