# [RFC] Display Function Arguments in Errors - Thread: https://externals.io/message/130290 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130290 - Started by Calvin Buckley on 2026-03-11T15:55:18+00:00 - Messages: 30 - RFC: Display Function Arguments in Errors (Implemented (PHP 8.6)) — https://externals.io/rfc/display_error_function_args.md - Page 1 of 2: messages 1 to 25 (25 per page, add `?page=N` to the URL) - Next page: https://externals.io/message/130290.md?page=2 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · RFCs at https://externals.io/rfc.md · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #130290 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-03-11T15:55:18+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130290 Hi internals, Based on the feedback I had from my proposal for function arguments in errors last week, I'd like to introduce an RFC for it. Please let me know what you think and please raise any possible issues. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/display_error_function_args Regards, Calvin --- ## #130291 — Gina P. Banyard — 2026-03-11T16:27:11+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130291 · In reply to: #130290 > Hi internals, > > Based on the feedback I had from my proposal for function arguments in > errors last week, I'd like to introduce an RFC for it. Please let me > know what you think and please raise any possible issues. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/display_error_function_args > > Regards, > Calvin I'm looking forward to this RFC, as normalizing the behaviour of diagnostics by removing the various docref functions is something I proposed back in 2019. [1] And I do think that we should remove the parameter versions of the docref functions as the behaviour of them if this is accepted seems hard to determine. Best regards, Gina P. Banyard [1] https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/4254 --- ## #130292 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-03-11T18:35:45+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130292 · In reply to: #130290 Hi > Based on the feedback I had from my proposal for function arguments in > errors last week, I'd like to introduce an RFC for it. Please let me > know what you think and please raise any possible issues. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/display_error_function_args Thank you for the RFC. I have the following comments: 1. I believe there is almost never “No Impact” to the ecosystem. In fact the RFC partly acknowledges it in the “Backward Incompatible Changes” section. Even if the corresponding sub-vote to default to 1 doesn't pass, code needs to be prepared for someone to set it to 1 themselves. This includes off-the-shelf software (such as WordPress, or Drupal, or whatever). I have the following two suggestions (that follow pretty naturally, but are nevertheless an impact that should be spelled out): a) Custom error handlers (set_error_handlers()) need to be prepared for the error message format to change. Even though we don't make any guarantees about error messages themselves, the existing format with “function name first” is reasonably structured for automated parsing (e.g. using a regular expression). This also includes error tracking tools that try to group error messages by function or similar. b) System administrators have one more INI setting to deal with and need to make a decision. Previous versions of the RFC template had an explicit “INI setting” section, but given it's so rare we add new INI settings these days, it has been removed from the template. For the few that still add one, properly discussing the consequences still is valuable. 2. As for the naming of the bikeshed, I suggest `error_ignore_args` for consistency with `zend.exception_ignore_args`. 3. For the voting options: You need to define a tie-breaker for the secondary votes. Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #130294 — Andrey Andreev — 2026-03-11T22:06:43+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130294 · In reply to: #130292 Hi, > I believe there is almost never “No Impact” to the ecosystem. In fact > the RFC partly acknowledges it in the “Backward Incompatible Changes” > section. Even if the corresponding sub-vote to default to 1 doesn't > pass, code needs to be prepared for someone to set it to 1 themselves. > This includes off-the-shelf software (such as WordPress, or Drupal, or > whatever). > > I have the following two suggestions (that follow pretty naturally, but > are nevertheless an impact that should be spelled out): > > a) Custom error handlers (set_error_handlers()) need to be prepared for > the error message format to change. Even though we don't make any > guarantees about error messages themselves, the existing format with > “function name first” is reasonably structured for automated parsing > (e.g. using a regular expression). This also includes error tracking > tools that try to group error messages by function or similar. > > b) System administrators have one more INI setting to deal with and need > to make a decision. Previous versions of the RFC template had an > explicit “INI setting” section, but given it's so rare we add new INI > settings these days, it has been removed from the template. For the few > that still add one, properly discussing the consequences still is valuable. These are all excellent points. I want to add one more side-effect that feels discounted: PII and other sensitive data leaking through logs. Partly what the INI setting is supposed to address, but IMO it only does so on paper. I have dealt with that issue many times, and developers tend to either not take it seriously or propose naive patchwork solutions such as blacklisting patterns in already produced logs. Plus, there's an inherent temptation to temporarily enable such settings for debugging purposes, not realizing the act itself represents a data leak and it is permanent. If this is a serious problem without args values being present today, imagine the amplification effect from this addition. With that being said, I also know the pain of having to deal with borderline useless error messages. The proposal isn't without merit, but I'd look for alternative approaches that don't create security headaches. Cheers, Andrey. --- ## #130295 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-03-12T15:53:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130295 · In reply to: #130292 > > Hi > > > > […] > > Thank you for the RFC. I have the following comments: > > 1. > > I believe there is almost never “No Impact” to the ecosystem. In fact the RFC partly acknowledges it in the “Backward Incompatible Changes” section. Even if the corresponding sub-vote to default to 1 doesn't pass, code needs to be prepared for someone to set it to 1 themselves. This includes off-the-shelf software (such as WordPress, or Drupal, or whatever). I'm adding this to the ecosystem impact section. > I have the following two suggestions (that follow pretty naturally, but are nevertheless an impact that should be spelled out): > > a) Custom error handlers (set_error_handlers()) need to be prepared for the error message format to change. Even though we don't make any guarantees about error messages themselves, the existing format with “function name first” is reasonably structured for automated parsing (e.g. using a regular expression). This also includes error tracking tools that try to group error messages by function or similar. > > b) System administrators have one more INI setting to deal with and need to make a decision. Previous versions of the RFC template had an explicit “INI setting” section, but given it's so rare we add new INI settings these days, it has been removed from the template. For the few that still add one, properly discussing the consequences still is valuable. I do recognize that PHP has been trending towards fewer knobs; unfortunately, I don't see a better way other than adding a new knob. > 2. > > As for the naming of the bikeshed, I suggest `error_ignore_args` for consistency with `zend.exception_ignore_args`. I'm not attached to the name; if others think this sounds good, I'll adjust the RFC and PR. > 3. > > For the voting options: You need to define a tie-breaker for the secondary votes. I might be a little dense here; I see tie-breakers mentioned in feature-proposals, but I don't see any guidance on how to include them in an RFC. The other RFCs I've been skimming don't seem to mention them either. > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus --- ## #130296 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-03-12T15:59:13+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130296 · In reply to: #130294 > > Hi, > > > I believe there is almost never “No Impact” to the ecosystem. In fact > the RFC partly acknowledges it in the “Backward Incompatible Changes” > section. Even if the corresponding sub-vote to default to 1 doesn't > pass, code needs to be prepared for someone to set it to 1 themselves. > This includes off-the-shelf software (such as WordPress, or Drupal, or > whatever). > > I have the following two suggestions (that follow pretty naturally, but > are nevertheless an impact that should be spelled out): > > a) Custom error handlers (set_error_handlers()) need to be prepared for > the error message format to change. Even though we don't make any > guarantees about error messages themselves, the existing format with > “function name first” is reasonably structured for automated parsing > (e.g. using a regular expression). This also includes error tracking > tools that try to group error messages by function or similar. > > b) System administrators have one more INI setting to deal with and need > to make a decision. Previous versions of the RFC template had an > explicit “INI setting” section, but given it's so rare we add new INI > settings these days, it has been removed from the template. For the few > that still add one, properly discussing the consequences still is valuable. > > These are all excellent points. > > I want to add one more side-effect that feels discounted: PII and other sensitive data leaking through logs. Partly what the INI setting is supposed to address, but IMO it only does so on paper. > I have dealt with that issue many times, and developers tend to either not take it seriously or propose naive patchwork solutions such as blacklisting patterns in already produced logs. Plus, there's an inherent temptation to temporarily enable such settings for debugging purposes, not realizing the act itself represents a data leak and it is permanent. If this is a serious problem without args values being present today, imagine the amplification effect from this addition. > > With that being said, I also know the pain of having to deal with borderline useless error messages. The proposal isn't without merit, but I'd look for alternative approaches that don't create security headaches. > > Cheers, > Andrey. This is something I'm also concerned about, but I feel the cat is already out of the bag with backtraces in exceptions providing the same parameter information. PHP and the library ecosystem seem to be adopting the sensitive parameter attribute, so my hope is that applications also start adopting it. --- ## #130298 — Larry Garfield — 2026-03-12T17:54:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130298 · In reply to: #130295 > > > […] > > I might be a little dense here; I see tie-breakers mentioned in > feature-proposals, but I don't see any guidance on how to include them > in an RFC. The other RFCs I've been skimming don't seem to mention them > either. Just put something like "in case of a tie, the default will be 1" above that voting widget. (Or 0 if you want to go that way.) Same for the other one. Few RFCs have secondary votes, so you won't see it very often. And they don't always mention a tie breaker, even though they arguably should. --Larry Garfield --- ## #130373 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-03-16T19:04:22+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130373 · In reply to: #130298 > > > > […] > > > […] > > Just put something like "in case of a tie, the default will be 1" above that voting widget. (Or 0 if you want to go that way.) Same for the other one. > > Few RFCs have secondary votes, so you won't see it very often. And they don't always mention a tie breaker, even though they arguably should. > > --Larry Garfield Sorry for the late response, I've added tiebreakers to the vote section. --- ## #130374 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-03-16T19:44:23+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130374 · In reply to: #130373 Hi > Sorry for the late response, I've added tiebreakers to the vote section. Thank you, that looks good to me. With the latest changes for the tie-breakers and the impact section I don't have any other comment. Naming of the INI (i.e. my suggestion for "error_ignore_args") still is open. Does anyone except me have opinion there? Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #130377 — Andrey Andreev — 2026-03-16T21:23:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130377 · In reply to: #130296 > > > > […] > sensitive data leaking through logs. Partly what the INI setting is > supposed to address, but IMO it only does so on paper. > > […] > not take it seriously or propose naive patchwork solutions such as > blacklisting patterns in already produced logs. Plus, there's an inherent > temptation to temporarily enable such settings for debugging purposes, not > realizing the act itself represents a data leak and it is permanent. If > this is a serious problem without args values being present today, imagine > the amplification effect from this addition. > > […] > borderline useless error messages. The proposal isn't without merit, but > I'd look for alternative approaches that don't create security headaches. > > This is something I'm also concerned about, but I feel the cat is > already out of the bag with backtraces in exceptions providing the same > parameter information. PHP and the library ecosystem seem to be adopting > the sensitive parameter attribute, so my hope is that applications also > start adopting it. On one hand, it's true that the cat is already out of the bag. On the other, that's been the case since at least the days of PHP 4 and related effort since has been to limit the danger. This would be a first in the other direction. Semi-random idea: what if it was a declare statement instead of an INI? That would have multiple benefits: - Can limit the exposure to particular scripts rather than globally - Easy to spot during code reviews and therefore little danger of negligent leaks - Potential to consolidate backtraces under the same umbrella and eventually retire zend.exception_ignore_args Cheers, Andrey. --- ## #130496 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-03-30T14:40:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130496 · In reply to: #130290 > > Hi internals, > > Based on the feedback I had from my proposal for function arguments in > errors last week, I'd like to introduce an RFC for it. Please let me > know what you think and please raise any possible issues. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/display_error_function_args > > Regards, > Calvin If I don't hear any additional feedback, I think I'll open this for voting at the end of the week. --- ## #130497 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-03-30T15:24:33+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130497 · In reply to: #130496 Hi Am 2026-03-30 16:40, schrieb Calvin Buckley: > If I don't hear any additional feedback, I think I'll open this for > voting at the end of the week. I've looked once more into my “naming remark” and realized that the `display_` prefix might actually be misleading (instead of “just” inconsistent) when compared to `display_errors` or `display_startup_errors`, because `display_error_function_args` does not control whether the arguments are *displayed*. It also controls whether or not the arguments are visible to a registered error_handler, which is quite different from just suppressing them from public display as done by `display_errors`. My suggestion of `error_ignore_args` thus still stands and I would likely vote against the RFC with the current naming (despite being in favor of the feature itself). Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #130498 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-03-30T18:36:49+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130498 · In reply to: #130497 > > Hi > > Am 2026-03-30 16:40, schrieb Calvin Buckley: > > […] > > I've looked once more into my “naming remark” and realized that the `display_` prefix might actually be misleading (instead of “just” inconsistent) when compared to `display_errors` or `display_startup_errors`, because `display_error_function_args` does not control whether the arguments are *displayed*. It also controls whether or not the arguments are visible to a registered error_handler, which is quite different from just suppressing them from public display as done by `display_errors`. > > My suggestion of `error_ignore_args` thus still stands and I would likely vote against the RFC with the current naming (despite being in favor of the feature itself). > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus I can rename this in the RFC since no one else had any other suggestions. I'm not attached to any name for the INI option myself. --- ## #130501 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-03-30T19:00:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130501 · In reply to: #130497 > > Hi > > Am 2026-03-30 16:40, schrieb Calvin Buckley: > > […] > > I've looked once more into my “naming remark” and realized that the `display_` prefix might actually be misleading (instead of “just” inconsistent) when compared to `display_errors` or `display_startup_errors`, because `display_error_function_args` does not control whether the arguments are *displayed*. It also controls whether or not the arguments are visible to a registered error_handler, which is quite different from just suppressing them from public display as done by `display_errors`. > > My suggestion of `error_ignore_args` thus still stands and I would likely vote against the RFC with the current naming (despite being in favor of the feature itself). > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus I've renamed the INI option per your suggestion. This does invert the semantics (matching the one for exceptions), so I took some care when editing. I'll update the PR accordingly soon. --- ## #130507 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-03-31T09:04:58+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130507 · In reply to: #130501 Hi Am 2026-03-30 21:00, schrieb Calvin Buckley: > I've renamed the INI option per your suggestion. This does invert the > semantics (matching the one for exceptions), so I took some care when > editing. I'll update the PR accordingly soon. I've checked the diff and noticed that you did not adjust the tie breaker for the “Default value for error_ignore_args” vote (it still favors `1`). Was this intentional or an oversight? Other than that the RFC looks good to me. Thank you! Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #130511 — Derick Rethans — 2026-03-31T09:53:10+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130511 · In reply to: #130290 > Based on the feedback I had from my proposal for function arguments in > errors last week, I'd like to introduce an RFC for it. Please let me > know what you think and please raise any possible issues. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/display_error_function_args | Add a error_ignore_args, which potentially defaults to “0”. This is | made an INI option, as some users may want to disable the feature by | enabling this option, at least for production (e.g. risks of untagged | PII in logs, size of logs, format compatibility with older versions of | PHP). I'm generally not in favour of new ini settings. I also don't think this is going to help a lot, as many people will likely not change the default. But, I am especially not keen on "negative names". Names that include "ignore" or "disable" for example. If you must have an ini setting, it ought to be something like "include_error_args" (defaulting to "0", I suspect). The confusion in https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/12276#pullrequestreview-4035216287 also explains why I feel this. cheers, Derick -- https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io Author of Xdebug. Like it? Consider supporting me: https://xdebug.org/support mastodon: @derickr@phpc.social @xdebug@phpc.social --- ## #130519 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-03-31T13:41:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130519 · In reply to: #130507 > > Hi > > Am 2026-03-30 21:00, schrieb Calvin Buckley: > > […] > > I've checked the diff and noticed that you did not adjust the tie breaker for the “Default value for error_ignore_args” vote (it still favors `1`). Was this intentional or an oversight? > > Other than that the RFC looks good to me. Thank you! > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus I've corrected this. --- ## #130520 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-03-31T13:57:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130520 · In reply to: #130511 > > > > > […] > > | Add a error_ignore_args, which potentially defaults to “0”. This is > | made an INI option, as some users may want to disable the feature by > | enabling this option, at least for production (e.g. risks of untagged > | PII in logs, size of logs, format compatibility with older versions of > | PHP). > > I'm generally not in favour of new ini settings. I also don't think this > is going to help a lot, as many people will likely not change the > default. > > But, I am especially not keen on "negative names". Names that include > "ignore" or "disable" for example. If you must have an ini setting, it > ought to be something like "include_error_args" (defaulting to "0", I > suspect). > > The confusion in > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/12276#pullrequestreview-4035216287 > also explains why I feel this. > > cheers, > Derick > > -- > https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io > > Author of Xdebug. Like it? Consider supporting me: https://xdebug.org/support > > mastodon: @derickr@phpc.social @xdebug@phpc.social Tim, would this name be OK? I also have a preference towards a non-inverted name (it was more overhead to keep track of it), but I do see wanting it consistent. --- ## #130532 — Matthew Weier O'Phinney — 2026-04-02T14:25:01+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130532 · In reply to: #130290 > Based on the feedback I had from my proposal for function arguments in > errors last week, I'd like to introduce an RFC for it. Please let me > know what you think and please raise any possible issues. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/display_error_function_args > Have you done any benchmarking on this? What is the performance impact when it is enabled versus disabled? That information will be useful if this passes so that users can understand not just the security impact of having this information reported in logs, but the performance impact. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney mweierophinney@gmail.com https://mwop.net/ he/him --- ## #130536 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-04-02T18:38:29+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130536 · In reply to: #130532 > > > Based on the feedback I had from my proposal for function arguments in > errors last week, I'd like to introduce an RFC for it. Please let me > know what you think and please raise any possible issues. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/display_error_function_args > > Have you done any benchmarking on this? What is the performance impact when it is enabled versus disabled? That information will be useful if this passes so that users can understand not just the security impact of having this information reported in logs, but the performance impact. > > -- > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > mweierophinney@gmail.com > https://mwop.net/ > he/him I haven't yet. I suppose the usual benchmark suite PHP runs might not be interesting for this seeing as they probably shouldn't be writing to the error log... --- ## #130537 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-04-02T18:39:57+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130537 · In reply to: #130496 > > > > […] > > If I don't hear any additional feedback, I think I'll open this for > voting at the end of the week. I've changed the name again to try to address everyone's concerns; because of this, I'll delay the voting by a week, especially since it's a holiday on when I had originally intended to do so anyways. Feedback would be appreciated. --- ## #130539 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-04-02T20:06:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130539 · In reply to: #130520 Hi Am 2026-03-31 15:57, schrieb Calvin Buckley: > Tim, would this name be OK? I also have a preference towards a > non-inverted name (it was more overhead to keep track of it), but I do > see wanting it consistent. I *prefer* consistency for discoverability, but I agree that “inverted” INIs are confusing. No strong opinion either way and definitely not a deal breaker for me. Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #130587 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-04-07T15:23:10+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130587 · In reply to: #130532 > > > Based on the feedback I had from my proposal for function arguments in > errors last week, I'd like to introduce an RFC for it. Please let me > know what you think and please raise any possible issues. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/display_error_function_args > > Have you done any benchmarking on this? What is the performance impact when it is enabled versus disabled? That information will be useful if this passes so that users can understand not just the security impact of having this information reported in logs, but the performance impact. > > -- > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > mweierophinney@gmail.com > https://mwop.net/ > he/him FWIW, I actually did try running benchmark/benchmark.php. The difference is pretty much margin of error (somehow fewer instructions in some cases?), but I also don't expect to see much of any docrefs triggered in it either. For the sake of completeness: Without: { "Zend\/bench.php": { "instructions": "1979721332" }, "Zend\/bench.php JIT": { "instructions": "589555739" }, "Symfony Demo 2.2.3": { "instructions": "87285017" }, "Symfony Demo 2.2.3 JIT": { "instructions": "90024058" }, "Wordpress 6.2": { "instructions": "244605957" }, "Wordpress 6.2 JIT": { "instructions": "211892436" } } With: { "Zend\/bench.php": { "instructions": "1979721328" }, "Zend\/bench.php JIT": { "instructions": "589555784" }, "Symfony Demo 2.2.3": { "instructions": "87285011" }, "Symfony Demo 2.2.3 JIT": { "instructions": "90023734" }, "Wordpress 6.2": { "instructions": "244606014" }, "Wordpress 6.2 JIT": { "instructions": "211892519" } } You can try it yourself with this patch (set error_include_args as needed): diff --git a/benchmark/benchmark.php b/benchmark/benchmark.php index 0c2ac4c6010..6377c3ceb37 100644 --- a/benchmark/benchmark.php +++ b/benchmark/benchmark.php @@ -79,7 +79,8 @@ function runWordpress(bool $jit): array { /* FIXME: It might be better to use a stable version of PHP for this command because we can't * easily alter the phar file */ runPhpCommand([ - '-d error_reporting=0', + '-d error_reporting=22527', + '-d error_include_args=1', 'wp-cli.phar', 'core', 'install', @@ -122,6 +123,8 @@ function runValgrindPhpCgiCommand( '--', $phpCgi, '-T' . ($warmup ? $warmup . ',' : '') . $repeat, + '-d error_reporting=22527', + '-d error_include_args=1', '-d max_execution_time=0', '-d opcache.enable=1', '-d opcache.jit=' . ($jit ? 'tracing' : 'disable'), I'm working on something that triggers a lot of docrefs in a hot loop, but I also don't know how interesting that would be seeing as if you're getting thousands of docref-triggered messages a second, your program probably has an issue. --- ## #130592 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-04-08T22:08:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130592 · In reply to: #130532 > > > Based on the feedback I had from my proposal for function arguments in > errors last week, I'd like to introduce an RFC for it. Please let me > know what you think and please raise any possible issues. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/display_error_function_args > > Have you done any benchmarking on this? What is the performance impact when it is enabled versus disabled? That information will be useful if this passes so that users can understand not just the security impact of having this information reported in logs, but the performance impact. > > -- > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > mweierophinney@gmail.com > https://mwop.net/ > he/him I've been doing a very stupid benchmark (let's call it Lhogstones): On an M1 Pro: Iterations With Without 10000 0.025276917 0.016741333 100000 0.189566666 0.123559584 1000000 1.798127917 1.146331917 10000000 18.1332335 11.267384125 There is an impact from turning it on, but my feeling is that it would be pretty minor. If your code has a lot of warnings/errors, then my feeling is that errors should be fixed before you can or should measure performance. Calling php_error_docref in a tight loop isn't really normal behaviour. So, while there is an impact, I also don't think it matters too much. If people think the impact *does* matter and is significant, then I could add a vote to separate the production vs. development INI value. --- ## #130603 — Calvin Buckley — 2026-04-10T20:38:34+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130290#130603 · In reply to: #130537 > > I've changed the name again to try to address everyone's concerns; > because of this, I'll delay the voting by a week, especially since > it's a holiday on when I had originally intended to do so anyways. > Feedback would be appreciated. I've updated the RFC again to put benchmarks for perf impact (as was mentioned on the list); for the sake of a minor change cooldown period, I'll give it another week to start voting and allow for discussion. --- Next page: https://externals.io/message/130290.md?page=2