> This would effectively be two competing RFCs and that could work with > our voting policy. One possible issue is that folks might be biased > against voting for the upgrade if there is the INI escape hatch. I > really don't like the extra maintenance effort (e.g. duplicate code > paths that no one is going to test) of the INI. I generally think an > opinionated RFC by a subject matter expert (i.e. you :-)) is stronger > than one that leaves every decision up to the voters.
Fair enough! I'll see where the discussion goes and use that to inform my decision, but stick with a single vote for now. > IMO it should be a vote for the increased minimum version with a good > argument as to why this increased minimum version is useful, > specifically “more predictable behavior for persistent connections, > because any per-connection state can cleanly be reset” and “support for > C11 in autotools, which already is the documented minimum in > https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/8d0777e88b8494807727fc57c148c2497976eff5/CODING_STANDARDS.md?plain=1#L12, > but folks will only notice if compilation fails halfway through”. That makes sense to me. That said, I don't personally have anything more to say about the autoconf change, other than "it sounds like a good idea." I will need you or someone (Peter Kokot?) who is more knowledgeable about autoconf and the build system to write that section if we're going to make this a combined RFC.
