One good way to maintain some quality standard is to enforce it thru CI
:)
This also applies to https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/10549/files and
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/10531/files for example, such
problems should fail the CI and enforce the contributors to fix the code
before the changes are merged.
With kind regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / S přátelským pozdravem,
Michael Voříšek
On 9 Feb 2023 14:14, Max Kellermann wrote:
On 2023/02/09 13:37, Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
Firstly, let's try to keep this discussion civil, and assume good faith on
both sides. Parts of your e-mail read like accusations of bad behaviour,
rather than genuinely trying to understand what happened, and how we can
collectively avoid it happening in future.
While I do have an opinion on whether I consider Derick Rethan's
behavior bad (yes, I do), that's not the point here. I don't know how
to proceed after my PR thread was locked - that's an unequivocal sign
of refusal to discuss the issue. The issue still exists, and I'm here
for your advice on how to resolve this. I'm desperate.
Secondly, note that Derick Rethans is the maintainer of both timelib and
the ext/date extension in php-src. So while we can discuss the hypothetical
question of how to handle a disagreement between php-src and upstream
library maintainers, it wouldn't apply in this case anyway, because it
would require Derick to disagree with himself.
That depends. Did the PHP project decide to go C99 starting with
version 8? What does that mean for maintainers - can they decide to
make code changes that are not compliant with that decision?
That is a honest question. I don't know how PHP works.
That's why I asked whether "secret" reverts without discussion are
considered good behavior. Maybe you believe maintainers should do
that - but that would be surprising for me.
Thirdly, it's not clear to me which of the following statements is true of
this change, and it might help the conversation to clarify more precisely:
a) The code you removed *violates* the C99 spec?
This. The code in question declares typedefs that are reserved words
in the C99 spec section 7.26.8; not just reserved, they conflict with
actual typedefs from <stdint.h>.
b) The code you removed is *guaranteed to be pointless* under the C99 spec
(but does not violate it)?
No. It is not pointless. Those declarations occupy reserved words,
and that is not allowed.
c) The code you removed is *pointless in this particular case* because of a
combination of the C99 spec and other factors (but might be reasonable in
other circumstances)?
I don't understand this one, but it doesn't sound like it applies.
Max
