Hi Matteo, On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 4:59 PM Matteo Beccati <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Il 19/07/2026 15:35, Tim Düsterhus ha scritto: > > On 7/18/26 20:42, Pierre Joye wrote: > >> > >> Discussions open for 14 days, until 2026/08/01. > > According to our reminders: > > > Any RFC intended for inclusion in PHP 8.6 must have its discussion > > concluded and its voting closed before August 13 > > which isn't technically possible for this RFC if the voting period has > to be two weeks, even if no major discussion or modification happens. > > Unless my calculations are off, of course.
I want to push back on applying that deadline the same way here. I co-introduced the RFC process. And the RFC process, the 14-day/deadline mechanism, was designed to reduce/remove risk of unbuilt changes, or having last minute additions without public discussions, during the final release stages. It was designed not to gate something that's already implemented and ready to be merged before the final stage (if votes pass). That distinction matters a lot. And it matters even more in my context given another bureaucratic process prevented me from posting this RFC before. On timing, the delay getting this posted wasn't from a lack of readiness, it was internal review process friction, a required PR approval that wasn't actually being handled in the PR itself, just assigned to a bot reviewer. I ended up merging it myself last week rather than wait longer on that. The reason 8.6 matters isn't convenience. These new APIs are ready and don't require any BC break to land now.The existing ext/gd functions remain untouched. But PHP 9 is the only point where option or default changes become possible, and having the APIs in place before 9 is what lets us use real-world usage to inform any such adjustments at that boundary. Miss this window, and that option is gone until the next major, years away, meaning we'd be locked into today's design choices for that entire span. I don't think we should lose that purely on a process technicality, especially for an RFC that's already implemented. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye
