Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95331
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU5Cw71Ta9eWmsYG6u4OPtPY0yCOGESyDw97WG6QOWgOOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC0n1EC8=+gnbqn+R_Z8YFVi=XGT4d+FGk2NU+6_Tsv1-O8+eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU431Sa_uRn26xA3GwUk4U0o-k4FXgRbxVtMjHWY4c8NNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU5Cw71Ta9eWmsYG6u4OPtPY0yCOGESyDw97WG6QOWgOOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 12:56:19 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7VkTJaJOg1LBCoQkOTc1YXHpOuTKouGtXxuBg-oyiR7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rodrigue Villetard <rodrigue.villetard@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144fbfa76be3b053a7a798a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Write down a deprecation policy
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a1144fbfa76be3b053a7a798a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Aug 19, 2016 8:45 PM, "Rodrigue Villetard" <rodrigue.villetard@gmail.com=
>
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> First post here, so please be gentle and pedagogic with me if I am
> misbehaviouring=E2=80=A6
>
> I am here for a pre-RFC feedback. It=E2=80=99s not coding related, but mo=
re about
> convention.
>
> I=E2=80=99m a follower of the french mailing list about php internals whe=
re we
> discuss, chiefly thanks to Pascal Martin, where does the french php
> community stand regarding RFC.
>
> Now and then, debates about RFC on the mailing list are polluted by this
> simple argument : =E2=80=9CWhat!!!? That should not be done in minor vers=
ion, but
> go for major!=E2=80=9D. (recently, it was triggered by this one:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/remove_utf_8_decode_encode)
>
> With some pals of this mailing list, we came to wrote this draft of RFC:
>
> objective : Write and follow a deprecation convention for PHP
> draft : https://github.com/gorghoa/the-deprecated-rfc/blob/master/RFC.dok=
u
>
> tl;dr:  If it=E2=80=99s a BC, deprecate in next minor version unless it=
=E2=80=99s security
> related
>
> May we have your feedback on such proposal? Is it the right place to
> discuss it?

The release process RFC does not allow BC breaks but in edge cases where it
is absolutely required. The utf8 proposal does not fit in this definition.

It can be clarified, always good to be more clear.

Cheers
Pierre

--001a1144fbfa76be3b053a7a798a--