*just let me know if that is a minor change and I'm okay with updating the
RFC right now.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020, 6:20 PM Benas IML firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hey Zeev,
> For me it doesn't really matter if we enforce `void` rules implicitly in
> PHP 8.1 or PHP 9.0. Just that we do at some point.
> Thus, I'm okay with closing the secondary vote and updating the RFC to
> mention only PHP 9.0 (and not PHP 8.1).
> Best regards,
> Benas Seliuginas
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020, 6:05 PM Zeev Suraski <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > On 3 Jul 2020, at 13:27, Nikita Popov firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > Now, whether this RFC actually makes a sufficient case to disregard
>> > here is a different question, and at the discretion of the voters.
>> I think this is key here (the first part, not the second).
>> It doesnât seem as if the RFC makes any case at all why it urgent to
>> enforce this compatibility break outside of the standard policy. In fact,
>> unless Iâm missing something, it doesnât attempt to tackle that question at
>> all, and portrays it as a simple choice between two equal options that are
>> up to personal preference. That is not the case - our standard policy is
>> an outward facing contract, which we should be very wary of breaking - and
>> at the very least do while taking a very informed, measured decision.
>> We can not assume that all voters fully understand the implications of
>> breaking the policy, or even that this would be breaking policy at all,
>> given that itâs not even mentioned in the RFC.
>> As such, I do think the current state of the RFC is somewhat problematic,
>> and to actually consider introducing it into 8.1, the RFC requires 3
>> 1. State that per policy, if the RFC is passed - it would generally go
>> into PHP 9.0.
>> 2. Make the case of why the RFC author believes itâs important to do it
>> in 8.1 and not wait for 9.0 per our public-facing policy.
>> 3. Change the wording on the 2nd vote to âintroduce into PHP 8.1,
>> despite our compatibility policyâ, and turn it into a clear Yes/No question
>> that clearly requires a 2/3 majority. Since technically it might be an
>> issue, perhaps we can stick with the current wording, but still make it
>> clear that for 8.1 to be chosen, itâs have to obtain a 2/3 supermajority.
>> I think those are fairly minor amendments that can be done without
>> restarting the vote, given where itâs at.