Re: How to deal with bugs in vendored libraries?

On 2023/02/09 13:37, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > Firstly, let's try to keep this discussion civil, and assume good faith on > both sides. Parts of your e-mail read like accusations of bad behaviour, > rather than genuinely trying to understand what happened, and how we can > collectively avoid it happening in future. While I do have an opinion on whether I consider Derick Rethan's behavior bad (yes, I do), that's not the point here. I don't know how to proceed after my PR thread was locked - that's an unequivocal sign of refusal to discuss the issue. The issue still exists, and I'm here for your advice on how to resolve this. I'm desperate. > Secondly, note that Derick Rethans is the maintainer of both timelib and > the ext/date extension in php-src. So while we can discuss the hypothetical > question of how to handle a disagreement between php-src and upstream > library maintainers, it wouldn't apply in this case anyway, because it > would require Derick to disagree with himself. That depends. Did the PHP project decide to go C99 starting with version 8? What does that mean for maintainers - can they decide to make code changes that are not compliant with that decision? That is a honest question. I don't know how PHP works. That's why I asked whether "secret" reverts without discussion are considered good behavior. Maybe you believe maintainers should do that - but that would be surprising for me. > Thirdly, it's not clear to me which of the following statements is true of > this change, and it might help the conversation to clarify more precisely: > a) The code you removed *violates* the C99 spec? This. The code in question declares typedefs that are reserved words in the C99 spec section 7.26.8; not just reserved, they conflict with actual typedefs from <stdint.h>. > b) The code you removed is *guaranteed to be pointless* under the C99 spec > (but does not violate it)? No. It is not pointless. Those declarations occupy reserved words, and that is not allowed. > c) The code you removed is *pointless in this particular case* because of a > combination of the C99 spec and other factors (but might be reasonable in > other circumstances)? I don't understand this one, but it doesn't sound like it applies. Max