Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
I’m all for this, but the minimum discussion period is two weeks.
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
I’m all for this, but the minimum discussion period is two weeks.
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/--
Agreed. Please cancel the vote and re-open it after the required two weeks
has passed.
--Kris
Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
I’m all for this, but the minimum discussion period is two weeks.
The two-week period is advisory and we don't need to get hung up on
process for the sake of process. There's been no meaningful
discussion in the past week because nobody thinks this is remotely a
bad idea. Hell, some have questioned why this was put into an RFC in
the first place. (It's arguably a bug, since the existing behavior
could never have been described as right or intentional).
If you're so worried about violating RFC process, I can revoke it
entirely and just commit it without voting, and I'd be completely in
the right. Or, we can apply a reasonable amount of process without
getting hung up on seven days worth of... no discussion whatsoever.
-Sara
Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
I’m all for this, but the minimum discussion period is two weeks.
The two-week period is advisory and we don't need to get hung up on
process for the sake of process. There's been no meaningful
discussion in the past week because nobody thinks this is remotely a
bad idea. Hell, some have questioned why this was put into an RFC in
the first place. (It's arguably a bug, since the existing behavior
could never have been described as right or intentional).
I fully back this. It's literally a bug fix which has let slide for some
time now. It's clear from the voting results that the core community
support this.
Thanks Sara for supplying the patch.
If you're so worried about violating RFC process, I can revoke it
entirely and just commit it without voting, and I'd be completely in
the right. Or, we can apply a reasonable amount of process without
getting hung up on seven days worth of... no discussion whatsoever.-Sara
Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
I’m all for this, but the minimum discussion period is two weeks.
The two-week period is advisory
I don't believe that is correct. Here's the actual wording:
"There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required."
The "is required" at the end suggests to me that this is more than merely a
suggestion.
and we don't need to get hung up on
process for the sake of process.
That's not what it is. The minimum discussion period is there so that
everyone can take the time to evaluate a proposal and hear any dissenting
views that may emerge during this process before voting. When something
gets fast-tracked like this, there could very well be someone with a
compelling argument against it who simply hasn't seen this RFC yet. I
agree that's doubtful in this case, but the idea of just arbitrarily
deciding not to follow the rules sets a dangerous precedent, in my view.
There's been no meaningful
discussion in the past week because nobody thinks this is remotely a
bad idea.
See above.
Hell, some have questioned why this was put into an RFC in
the first place. (It's arguably a bug, since the existing behavior
could never have been described as right or intentional).If you're so worried about violating RFC process, I can revoke it
entirely and just commit it without voting, and I'd be completely in
the right.
I can't comment on that as it's well outside my purview. What I can say is
that, if you're going to choose to use the RFC process as you did, then you
should follow that process and respect its guidelines. I'd rather you
scrap the RFC entirely than set a precedent that people can just
arbitrarily decide that the rules don't apply to them. I'm concerned about
the next person who posts an RFC and cites your actions as justification
for not following the posted guidelines.
Or, we can apply a reasonable amount of process without
getting hung up on seven days worth of... no discussion whatsoever.
I think you're missing the point. Please see my concerns above.
-Sara
Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
I’m all for this, but the minimum discussion period is two weeks.
The two-week period is advisory and we don't need to get hung up on
process for the sake of process. There's been no meaningful
discussion in the past week because nobody thinks this is remotely a
bad idea. Hell, some have questioned why this was put into an RFC in
the first place. (It's arguably a bug, since the existing behavior
could never have been described as right or intentional).If you're so worried about violating RFC process, I can revoke it
entirely and just commit it without voting, and I'd be completely in
the right. Or, we can apply a reasonable amount of process without
getting hung up on seven days worth of... no discussion whatsoever.-Sara
I agree with Sara here. The process if for human and not for it's own sake.
Trivial and non-controversial changes like this really don't need the nitpicking
which is going on.
I'm not entirely sure that a backwards compatibility break in a minor
release would be considered non-controversial.
While this change is pretty trivial, both technically and
syntactically, I'm unsure why there even is an RFC process in place if
it's going to be ignored because it's "too much trouble".
I was also under the impression that RFCs exist to get comments which
on a particular subject - which may or may not include nitpicking
because what may be a small issue to some people could be a large
issue to others. It's been shown previously where this could be used
and could cause code that previously executed to not execute which
seems like a problem.
I see this as a bad design choice in the language which should be
rectified... just in a major version.
I'm not entirely sure that a backwards compatibility break in a minor
release would be considered non-controversial.[...]
I see this as a bad design choice in the language which should be
rectified... just in a major version.
As it doesn't even work (one is silently ignored) I wouldn't call it a
design choice, but a bug or oversight.
On the one hand I also agree with Sara that this could've easily been
fixed with a commit without RFC.
On the other hand I don't think it's an urgent fix and there's no
pressing need to have it in 5.next instead of next.
~Florian
Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
--
Some nit picks about the RFC itself:
- A syntax break should require two-thirds vote, no matter how many
users it impacts. It's one of the few defined parts of our RFC
process1: "For these reasons, a feature affecting the language
itself (new syntax for example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it
wins a 2/3 of the votes." - Syntax breaks generally don't belong in minor versions. From the
Release Process RFC2: "Backward compatibility must be respected with
the same major releases, for example from 5.2 to 5.6." This RFC
removes something that is currently possible in PHP 5, thus violating
our release process. I know we've broken this rule in 5.X already;
that doesn't mean we should do it again. - As already mentioned by, the length of the minimum discussion time
necessary for an RFC that touches the language is two weeks3; this
RFC was announced on August 7th, meaning it has only been one week.