Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94076
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a42423d5-522b-a769-352a-20a5ef520c01@beccati.com>
References: <CY1PR0201MB1786A3D8145ADCF4225E8C4ABF560@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEZPtU4cTk5B_414cTou_LaGa0Tg_h=7fmtsLcNhNNYt69sUPw@mail.gmail.com> <a42423d5-522b-a769-352a-20a5ef520c01@beccati.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:45:02 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4Oye285AG17BZapSzHDj1J68mCRKnABQx00cT6skhJSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com>
Cc: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Accepted] Replace "Missing argument" warning
 with "Too few arguments" exception
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/2016 08:18, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry
>>
>> I am sorry but I have to ask to wait before merging it.
>>
>> 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
>
> As Dmitry pointed out the change has been merged. I had voted yes, and I
> was prepared to make a few adjustments to the legacy app I work with.
>
> You can imagine I was extremely surprised to see that the test suite was
> green this morning. There might still be some fixing required for the
> code that isn't covered by tests, but to me this BC-break seems almost
> irrelevant compared to what we had in 7.0 (e.g. PHP4 constructors or
> method signatures).
>
> Of course I can't speak for the majority of the applications out there,
> but I think Revive Adserver is a fairly good sample of legacy code one
> could find.

That change is relatively harmless, right.

This is less the case for the other RFC which has been now retargetted for 8.

Overall we should be much more careful than simply "it is ok, only a
few adjustments". This is exactly what prevented people to upgrade.
And now that we finally see a very fast adoption of latest releases,
it would be a bad time to go back to always have small breaks per new
release. As I feel confident that more will come.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org