Re: Soft-reserve "void" class name

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote: > I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why > should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve > typename RFC were unanimous. > > Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already > have an alpha* by now and we are proposing new changes?. Please stick > to our established rules and release timetables as much as possible, > thank you. > While I agree that we should be wary of anything which break process, I think we should give some thought (possibly an RFC thought) to whether or not Documentation-only changes, such as what Nikita suggested, are actual violations of a feature freeze. Could one put up an RFC for "void" reservation right up to the release date of 7.0.0-final? I would say "yes". Such an RFC is documentation-only and has no code behind it. Therefore it would have no impact on alpha/beta/rc testing. It's really a langspec RFC more than a runtime RFC to be quite honest. -Sara