Re: RFC: ext/mysql deprecation

On 19 November 2012 20:44, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote: >> My intention at this stage is to call a vote next Monday: it feels >> like the discussion has mostly died down now (which isn't to say I >> think we're at a consensus necessarily — it just feels as though the >> flurry of opinions have been made and argued either way), and I'm >> hoping that everyone can have a think about where and how they'd like >> to see this move forward (if at all) between now and then. Given we've >> only just hit alpha 1, I don't think we need to rush into a decision >> right now for the sake of one. > > > I completely agree. > > I would suggest one thing though. When it comes up for a vote, please either > make 2 questions: > > 1. Should ext/mysql be hard-deprecated in 5.5 > 2. Should ext/mysql be soft-deprecated in 5.5 and hard-deprecated in NEXT > > Or 4 options to deprecation: > > 1. Hard-deprecated in 5.5 > 2. Soft-deprecated in 5.5 and hard-deprecated in NEXT > 3. Either > 4. Neither > > That way both viewpoints can be voted on in one vote. And we can get an > accurate count of the thoughts... I've been mulling this for a couple of days, and Anthony and I have talked about this on IRC, and I'd prefer to have two questions: 1. Should ext/mysql generate E_DEPRECATED notices in PHP 5.5? (yes/no) 2. If we decide not to generate E_DEPRECATED notices in PHP 5.5, what should the next course of action be: (a) Enhance the manual text to make the soft deprecation clearer, and generate E_DEPRECATED notices in PHP 5.6 (b) Enhance the manual text to make the soft deprecation clearer, but take no further action in terms of E_DEPRECATED for the forseeable future (c) Remove the warnings from the manual and undeprecate ext/mysql entirely The reason for this is that I'd like to make the vote about the actual RFC (E_DEPRECATED in 5.5) as clear as possible. I'm worried that a 3 or 4 option vote there could easily lead to a split decision, which will make it very difficult to take any sort of decisive action. I'd rather make a decision there, then we can look at what action would be preferred if the RFC itself fails. Just to be clear: I don't think that "do nothing" is a very useful option for the second question, which is why I've omitted it — it doesn't seem like anyone's particularly satisfied with the current state of affairs. Thoughts? Adam