[RFC][VOTE] PHP Namespace in core

  110239
May 22, 2020 06:14 michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?=)
Hi Internals,

We have just opened the vote on the PHP namespace in core RFC. The voting
will be
open for two weeks, until 2020-06-05 06:00 UTC.

Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php-namespace-in-core#vote

Cheers,
Michał Marcin Brzuchalski
  110258
May 22, 2020 17:30 marandall@php.net (Mark Randall)
On 22/05/2020 07:14, Michał Brzuchalski wrote:
> Hi Internals, > > We have just opened the vote on the PHP namespace in core RFC. The voting > will be > open for two weeks, until 2020-06-05 06:00 UTC. > > Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php-namespace-in-core#vote > > Cheers, > Michał Marcin Brzuchalski >
I hope that those voting look to the long term, the next 10 to 20 years, and the potentially hundreds of new classes that they may bring. I hope those voting don't choose to place a senseless blanket limitation on the options available to all future RFC authors, even before those authors have had an opportunity to make their case for their individual usage of \PHP. Should this vote fail, \PHP effectively changes from a reserved namespace, to a dead namespace. Mark Randall
  110296
May 28, 2020 18:53 ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)
> On May 22, 2020, at 01:14, Michał Brzuchalski brzuchalski@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Internals, > > We have just opened the vote on the PHP namespace in core RFC. The voting > will be open for two weeks, until 2020-06-05 06:00 UTC. > > Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php-namespace-in-core#vote
In light of recent discussions on attribute naming schemes, I’m concerned that future RFC discussions will be riddled with noisy back-and-forth messages concerning what and how to name things. I’m not passing any judgement on these types of conversations, since I agree that naming things is important, but I also think the use of a specialized namespace for core symbols is inevitable, and it’s better to tackle this now than later. With that in mind, I’m changing my “no” vote to a “yes” for this RFC. As a side note: one of the reasons I dislike the `\PHP` namespace is because I think it looks ugly. I don’t know why I have this impression, and it’s probably the wrong reason to vote “no” on something, but it’s one of the factors that led me to vote “no.” I’ll probably standardize on capitalizing the namespace as `\Php` (I tend to follow the Microsoft ..NET capitalization conventions [1]). Cheers, Ben [1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/design-guidelines/capitalization-conventions
  110297
May 29, 2020 10:23 rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 19:53, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote:

> > In light of recent discussions on attribute naming schemes, I’m > concerned that future RFC discussions will be riddled with noisy > back-and-forth messages concerning what and how to name things. I’m not > passing any judgement on these types of conversations, since I agree > that naming things is important, but I also think the use of a > specialized namespace for core symbols is inevitable, and it’s better to > tackle this now than later. >
The problem with this RFC, to me, is that it doesn't actually prevent any of those noisy back-and-forth discussions. With this policy in place, it would still be a topic of debate on every RFC: * Whether the functionality is "tightly coupled to the PHP engine", just as we used to debate whether something was "a feature affecting the language itself" and therefore require a higher voting threshold * If the answer is "no", should a new feature go into the PHP\ namespace anyway, as implied by the Future Scope section? * Should the class be _directly_ in PHP\ or some new or existing "project"-level sub-namespace? * Should *that* level be flat, or be organised into a further hierarchy? * If there's a named project level, should the class name repeat that name (PHP\Attributes\Jit vs PHP\Attributes\JitAttribute)? ....and so on. To use a hackneyed metaphor, it's a general agreement that the bikeshed needs painting, and we'll decide the colour later. No naming convention can perfectly cover every future situation, and agreeing the initial text will be painful, but I think a concrete policy with clear definitions and examples is both possible and necessary. A few of us started brainstorming some ideas in Room 11 a few days ago; I think it needs someone to don their flame-proof armour and edit together a first draft so that we can discuss specifics. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
  110340
June 3, 2020 07:49 michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?=)
pt., 22 maj 2020 o 08:14 Michał Brzuchalski brzuchalski@gmail.com>
napisał(a):

> Hi Internals, > > We have just opened the vote on the PHP namespace in core RFC. The voting > will be > open for two weeks, until 2020-06-05 06:00 UTC. >
Heads-up. We will end the vote soon. If anyone may have not decided yet or would like to change their mind, this is the last moment. You're the one who rocks here! Cheers, Michał Brzuchalski
  110368
June 4, 2020 11:57 michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?=)
śr., 3 cze 2020 o 09:49 Michał Brzuchalski brzuchalski@gmail.com>
napisał(a):

> pt., 22 maj 2020 o 08:14 Michał Brzuchalski brzuchalski@gmail.com> > napisał(a): > >> Hi Internals, >> >> We have just opened the vote on the PHP namespace in core RFC. The voting >> will be >> open for two weeks, until 2020-06-05 06:00 UTC. >> > > Heads-up. We will end the vote soon. > If anyone may have not decided yet or would like to change their mind, > this is the last moment. > You're the one who rocks here! >
Voting is now closed. The proposed RFC was rejected with 19 votes in favour and 24 against. Thank you all for participating. Cheers, Michał Brzuchalski