Hi, On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:09 PM Jorg Sowa <jorg.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you all for the feedback on the topic of BC breaks in argument > validation https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/126706 > > I have collected all concerns, prepared an RFC for this change, and I'm > opening discussion on its content: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/minor-version-compatibility > > Since this touches on the broader topic of release policy and BC > expectations, I’d also like to open the door for related improvements. > Rowan raised several valid points that highlight the need for clearer > communication and expectations around minor version changes. If the > community feels it's appropriate, I’m happy to include these suggestions in > the voting. The more clearly BC policy is defined, the less time we’ll need > to spend on debating individual cases in the future. > > Rowan’s suggestions included examples like: > > Maybe we could work on some criteria that could be applied (and publicised > to users) about what is and isn't allowed in minor versions. > For instance: > > - > > Code that already causes fatal behaviour might cause different fatal > behaviour (e.g. throwing an Error instead of raising an E_ERROR) > - > > Code that directly violates documented types might start throwing > TypeError > - > > Code that previously returned null for invalid inputs might start > throwing ValueError > > This looks a bit too generic to me and it might significantly differ based on use case as Bob noted. I think we should leave some flexibility and rather add rules for specific issues where we need some defined approach. In this case it is handling of errors for cases where only constants are documented. Kind regards Jakub
