RE: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

Hi, > -Original Message- > From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyr...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 10:48 PM > To: Rowan Collins ; Anatoliy Belsky ; > Joe Watkins ; Davey Shafik > Cc: PHP Internals

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 12/06/2016 22:04, Dan Ackroyd wrote: On 12 June 2016 at 17:42, Rowan Collins wrote: - We have an RFC [too_few_args] about to pass that seems to break our published Release Process. The "Release Process" is an RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess There are

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 12/06/2016 20:55, Nikita Popov wrote: In that it is similar to the RFC on introducing warnings for invalid numeric strings in arithmetic operations. Sure, that one introduces only a notice while this one throws an exception. Most people probably don't share this opinion, but I think there's

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Add curl_multi_errno(), curl_share_errno() and curl_share_strerror()

Pierrick, Just wanted to say thank you for this (and I voted +1) - Davey On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 09:46 Pierrick Charron wrote: > Hi Internals, > > Since I got no feedback on the RFC about the addition of those 3 functions > and that this is not a big change I decided to open

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

Hi! > - We have an RFC [too_few_args] about to pass that seems to break our > published Release Process. > - Is the vote invalid, or do we need to change the Process? > - The opinions of those who voted "Yes" are particularly requested. BC is inherently subjective and subject to judgement, since

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

Apologies for top-post, am mobile. I have discussed this with Joe briefly, and with a few others while at PHPSC on Saturday. My opinion: - I like and agree with the change despite voting no - I voted no ONLY due to the BC break and were I the sole RM and had I the power I would chose to veto

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 12 June 2016 at 17:42, Rowan Collins wrote: > - We have an RFC [too_few_args] about to pass that seems to break our > published Release Process. The "Release Process" is an RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess There are no rules against a new RFC changing the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

Hi, my interpretation is that no rfc with BC breaks should target a minor version. Our interpretation(based on past decisions and mailing list discussion) of BC break is changing any userland API except where we excplicitly stated that the previous behavior is undefined (and we also allow

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > On 12/06/2016 18:20, Nikita Popov wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Rowan Collins > > wrote: >> >> tl;dr: >> >> - We have an RFC

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] More precise float value

Hi, The vote for more precise float values is now open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/precise_float_value#voting Jakub

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 6/12/2016 8:21 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > A policy of "every BC break should be analysed as a cost-benefit > tradeoff" might perhaps be a better one than we have now; it is not, > however, what is written in the Release Process RFC. > Which would be arbitrarily laid out anyways. Think of the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On 12/06/2016 18:20, Nikita Popov wrote: On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Rowan Collins > wrote: tl;dr: - We have an RFC [too_few_args] about to pass that seems to break our published Release Process. - Is the vote

Re: [PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > tl;dr: > > - We have an RFC [too_few_args] about to pass that seems to break our > published Release Process. > - Is the vote invalid, or do we need to change the Process? > - The opinions of those who voted "Yes"

[PHP-DEV] Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?

tl;dr: - We have an RFC [too_few_args] about to pass that seems to break our published Release Process. - Is the vote invalid, or do we need to change the Process? - The opinions of those who voted "Yes" are particularly requested. Hi All, The RFC to Replace "Missing argument" warning with

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Typed Properties

On 12/06/16 14:03, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > If I had to implement type-checked properties in plain PHP, I would do > something like this... > > /** > * @property int $price > */ > class Product > { > private $_price; > > public function __set($name, $value) { > if ($name ===

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Typed Properties

Pretend I know (basically) nothing about how PHP was implemented, because I don't ;-) But I don't understand why regular property updates should be affected by this at all? If I had to implement type-checked properties in plain PHP, I would do something like this... /** * @property int $price

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.1.0alpha1 is available for testing

Remi Collet in php.internals (Sun, 12 Jun 2016 08:17:35 +0200): >Le 11/06/2016 à 19:01, Jan Ehrhardt a écrit : >> Probably you know best, but isn't ssh2 ready for PHP7+? >> http://git.php.net/?p=pecl/networking/ssh2.git;a=summary > >IIRC, ssh2 is not yet fully ported to PHP 7 OK, thanks. >>

[PHP-DEV] C89 vs. C99

I am curious why we are not finally doing the switch to C99 with VC14 finally supporting most of C99. I mean, I know that GCC and VC14 do no fully support C99 but the most common features are implemented: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations - https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html --

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.1.0alpha1 is available for testing

Le 11/06/2016 à 19:01, Jan Ehrhardt a écrit : > Remi Collet in php.internals (Sat, 11 Jun 2016 17:15:24 +0200): >> Le 11/06/2016 à 12:38, Davey Shafik a écrit : >>> The first alpha for 7.1.0 was just released and can be downloaded from: >> >> I have already built RPM of this version [1] +