Re: [RFC] [Accepted] Replace "Missing argument" warning with "Too few arguments" exception
| From: | Davey Shafik | Date: | Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:02:36 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Accepted] Replace "Missing argument" warning with "Too few arguments" exception | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-94063@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
>
> On 06/16/2016 09:18 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Dmitry
>>
>> I am sorry but I have to ask to wait before merging it.
>>
>>
> Sorry, but this is already merged.
>
>>
>> It is definitely not clear that:
>>
>> . The rfc was valid to begin with due to the short discussion time
>> . This BC is acceptable for 7.x
>>
>> I think things like things can be prevented by following the relatively
>> simple rfc process and having a more clear way to define what is acceptable
>> as BC.
>>
>>
> I think, the decision of the majority of voters, told that the BC break is
> minor and acceptable for 7.1.
> The only mistake was in shorten discussion period.
>
>>
>> I think the RMs should step in here.
>>
>>
> Yeah, I suppose, RMs may have a right to take a decision and revert this.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
As I said in earlier discussions, the fact we cannot measure potential
impact makes me very hesitant to include this change. Again: if I were the
sole RM I _would_ try to veto this change.
I understand the desire to get this out in 7.1, we will never have a time
when 7.x has less users than it does now, and we don't want to wait for 8.0.
IMO a better compromise would have been to add an E_DEPRECATED noting that
it would be changed in 7.2, and then doing so. Is something like this still
a possibility?
I know that Joe feels strongly about this particular change being merged
in, and it is done now. We should address similar situations moving
forward, and move on.
- Davey