On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:45:43 +0100, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Can you explain why you think it's a major BC break? The RFC suggested
that the BC break would be minimal and that the likelihood a lot of
people used it is very low. If you think differently and share it it
might put it in a different light.
Problem is that we do not allow BC break in 5.5, at all, minor or not.
Minor vs major BC is all relative, a minor BC for someone can create
large issues for someone else, that's why we do not allow BC, in
general. Killing some outdated "security" features however may fit
better, but I am really not sure this one is worse the risk.
Sorry, this objection simply is not timely.
In order for this voting thing to work, votes have to have a strong degree
of finality. It would have to take a pretty strong new fact to overcome
that finality. Otherwise, people will not have incentives to look *early*
at the RFCs and the discussions will never end.
In any case, the interpretation of the release process RFC as to BC breaks
has been rather lax. 5.4 introduced pretty disruptive BC breaks like
eliminating call-time pass-by-ref and changing the default encoding for
htmlentities/htmlspecialchars and new keywords. 5.5 will also introduce a
few (look at UPGRADING).
--
Gustavo Lopes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
