Re: Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable?
| From: | Rowan Collins | Date: | Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:09:42 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Is the "No BC Breaks in Minor Releases" policy enforceable? | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-94062@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 16/06/2016 19:11, Levi Morrison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Rowan Collins<rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: Why? What's special about 7.1? If it was a case of finishing off changes that "should have been part of 7.0", I can see some kind of logic, but the ones we're actually discussing seem to be more about "preparing for 8.0". I didn't necessarily mean the currently proposed; I mean more generally. For instance Nullable Types and the associated ReflectionType changes both have small BC breaks that I don't mind. In the case of the former there is a long-standing bug that did have BC break impact that was fixed.Ah, fair enough, thanks for clarifying. As noted before, the nullable types case included careful analysis of small BC breaks that were a side-effect of a major new feature being released as part of 7.1. I wouldn't personally draw a distinction in between adding it in x.1 vs x.2 or x.3; either the BC hiccup is acceptable, or the feature should be roadmapped to x+1.0. But the ReflectionType case definitely feels like clean-up of 7.0, so makes sense to me as an example. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]