> De : Dan Ackroyd [mailto:dan...@basereality.com] > > On 19 March 2015 at 17:14, François Laupretre <franc...@php.net> wrote: > > > As you may have noticed if you had a look at the RFC or twitter, I have > decided to follow people's suggestion. > > Please note that the switch from E_DEPRECATED to fatal error won't > require any new RFC/discussion/vote > > as the fatal error is considered as approved. I just introduce an > E_DEPRECATED phase for 7.0. > > What. The. Fuck. > > You edited the RFC after the voting had closed? You are not allowed to > edit an RFC after the voting has occurred. > > I don't think we have any rules in place to deal with this; I don't > think anyone anticipated that anyone would actually try to do this. We > obviously need an explicit rule for this, but that can wait until 7.0 > is closer to shipping, and we can contemplate RFC rules at leisure. > > For now, please revert the changes your made to the RFC after it had > been closed. And whoever has the power to remove karma, please take > the power to edit RFCs away from Francois once that has been done. > > > Array to string conversion will raise E_DEPRECATED in 7.0, and, then, fatal > error in 7.1 or 7.2. > > You are being dumb here as well. We try to avoid breaking code in > point releases. This BC break can only be done at a major version.
OK. OK. I revert the RFC to its original version. It will raise E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR in 7.0. Before you burn me alive, here's what happened : I was in Africa during the last 3 weeks, and didn't have any way to post to the list. I just had one hour of internet access during all this time and wanted to use it to close the vote, but I saw Zeev's and Julien's comments asking for a deprecate phase in 7.0, and thought that, if there was a rule, I had to respect it. I am not as dumb as you may think, I know BC breaks must be introduced in major versions, but the requests to do so were coming from people who are supposed to know the rules better than I. So, I added a line at the end of the RFC and sent a private message via twitter to Zeev asking him to forward the information to the list to discuss whether this change after vote was considered as acceptable or not. Unfortunately, I discovered his reply this morning saying he preferred me to do it when I would be back. That's why you discovered it today. So, I probably shouldn't have modified the RFC when I closed the vote, but there was a context. So, as it is not clear whether there's a rule saying that everything must be deprecated before being removed, I will implement the RFC exactly as it was voted. And let me apologize for the misunderstandings I have caused. Regards François I thought introducing a temporary E_DEPRECATED phase would be acceptable to everyone and I would have asked the list but I could not send emails from where I was during the last 2 weeks. I just had web access during 1 hour, read Zeev's and Julien's comments, added one line in the RFC, and then sent a twitter message to Zeev asking him to forward the change to the list so that it could be judged acceptable or not. Unfortunately, was in Africa during the last 2 weekssatisfy everyone but it seems it is not the case. Now, what should I say when people who are supposed to know the process better than me ask to delay the BC break to 7.1 or 7.2 ? > > cheers > Dan > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
