On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 23:37, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>
> On 20/08/2019 22:18, Peter Kokot wrote:
> >> The approach was: add the deprecation notice in PHP 8, and remove short
> >> open tags in PHP 9 or PHP 10 (purposely left vague to get more support for
> >> the idea - as getting the deprecation
On 20/08/2019 22:18, Peter Kokot wrote:
The approach was: add the deprecation notice in PHP 8, and remove short open
tags in PHP 9 or PHP 10 (purposely left vague to get more support for the idea
- as getting the deprecation underway is the most important move).
I guess we should really
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:47, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 17:18, Peter Kokot wrote:
>>
>> Let's simplify this a bit because I'm not sure I have seen anyone
>> mentioning something like a PHP 10 milestone in all these discussions.
>> If we want to get rid of some feature like
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:44 PM G. P. B. wrote:
> > This has been a topic of discussion in the past. The agreement was that
> > non-author edits are permitted if they are isolated to a clear
> > "counter-arguments" section. If someone had changed the meaning of the
> RFC
> > or of your
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 17:18, Peter Kokot wrote:
> Let's simplify this a bit because I'm not sure I have seen anyone
> mentioning something like a PHP 10 milestone in all these discussions.
> If we want to get rid of some feature like this a very long timeline
> needs to be done and also major
2019年8月20日(火) 16:47 Rowan Tommins :
> On 20/08/2019 13:51, G. P. B. wrote:
> >- I seriously don't appreciate that the RFC has been edited*WITHOUT*
> my
> > knowledge to add endorsement names on the counterargument to the RFC on
> the
> > RFC itself when the appropriate place would have been
On 20/08/2019 17:56, Peter Kokot wrote:
Probably. But fact is that PHP opening short tags can be used. We can
enable them in controlled environments and use the short tags knowing
they will never be removed now. No deprecation warning is standing in
our way to do that now. And such code (or
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 18:39, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>
> On 20/08/2019 17:18, Peter Kokot wrote:
> > About the docs - there are
> > very minor changes needed where "backwards compatibility" is mentioned
> > maybe. Because they are not in PHP for keeping BC anymore now. Nobody
> > proposed a better
On 20/08/2019 17:18, Peter Kokot wrote:
About the docs - there are
very minor changes needed where "backwards compatibility" is mentioned
maybe. Because they are not in PHP for keeping BC anymore now. Nobody
proposed a better solution than this RFC, then they are a feature.
Being "for
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 18:02, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:50 AM Peter Kokot wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 14:51, G. P. B. wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello internals,
> > >
> > > This RFC has been declined with 56% in favour (30/54) and 44% against
> > > (24/54).
> > >
> > >
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:50 AM Peter Kokot wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 14:51, G. P. B. wrote:
> >
> > Hello internals,
> >
> > This RFC has been declined with 56% in favour (30/54) and 44% against
> > (24/54).
> >
> > Two side notes to this:
> >
> > - I seriously don't appreciate that
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 14:51, G. P. B. wrote:
>
> Hello internals,
>
> This RFC has been declined with 56% in favour (30/54) and 44% against
> (24/54).
>
> Two side notes to this:
>
> - I seriously don't appreciate that the RFC has been edited *WITHOUT* my
> knowledge to add endorsement names
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:51 AM G. P. B. wrote:
> - I seriously don't appreciate that the RFC has been edited *WITHOUT* my
> knowledge to add endorsement names on the counterargument to the RFC on the
> RFC itself when the appropriate place would have been the counter argument
> document.
>
>
On 20/08/2019 13:51, G. P. B. wrote:
- I seriously don't appreciate that the RFC has been edited*WITHOUT* my
knowledge to add endorsement names on the counterargument to the RFC on the
RFC itself when the appropriate place would have been the counter argument
document.
While I appreciate
Hello internals,
This RFC has been declined with 56% in favour (30/54) and 44% against
(24/54).
Two side notes to this:
- I seriously don't appreciate that the RFC has been edited *WITHOUT* my
knowledge to add endorsement names on the counterargument to the RFC on the
RFC itself when the
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:25 AM Robert Korulczyk wrote:
> > Disabling short tags now is done with "an explicit directive" (there has
> to be a specific ini file with a specific setting 'short_open_tag = 0').
> > Isn't this the same "situation when you create a separate file with an
> explicit
> Disabling short tags now is done with "an explicit directive" (there has to
> be a specific ini file with a specific setting 'short_open_tag = 0').
> Isn't this the same "situation when you create a separate file with an
> explicit directive"?
No, it's not. `php.ini` is outside of project
> This does not explain how someone could use that feature *by accident*. I gave
> an example where you can use short open tags by accident, and it is really
> easy
> (the most popular IDE sometimes generates code with short open tags) and hard
> to notice (it is not easy to spot a difference
> I did mention such example with the 'engine' setting (
> https://www.php.net/manual/en/apache.configuration.php#ini.engine as it's
> PHP_INI_ALL ). Of course you could ask why would anyone do that (and afaik
> it's sapi specific) but technically it can happen just in one "hard to
> notice"
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Korulczyk [mailto:rob...@korulczyk.pl]
>
>
> Can you give an example where using `.user.ini` may create unexpected and hard
> to notice code leaks?
I did mention such example with the 'engine' setting (
> Argument for "only a particular code path in a particular environment" is
> somewhat weak because in that case why does even ' .user.ini' feature exists
> (especially in apache sapi where you can even do engine = 0) as it also can
> lead to wildly different language behaviour?
Can you give
> -Original Message-
> From: Bishop Bettini [mailto:bis...@php.net]
>
> That's why I highlighted Robert Korulczyk's case study: only a particular
> code path in a particular environment had the problem.
>
> The status quo enables deployments to fail insecurely. "secret"; is a trap
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:35 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:10 PM Bishop Bettini wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:34 AM G. P. B. wrote:
>>
>> > The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
>> > It is expected to last two (2) weeks until
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:35 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:10 PM Bishop Bettini wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:34 AM G. P. B.
> wrote:
> >
> > > The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has
> begun.
> > > It is expected to last two (2) weeks until
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:35 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:10 PM Bishop Bettini wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:34 AM G. P. B. wrote:
>>
>> > The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
>> > It is expected to last two (2) weeks until
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:10 PM Bishop Bettini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:34 AM G. P. B. wrote:
>
> > The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> > It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
> >
> > A counter argument to this RFC is available at
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:34 AM G. P. B. wrote:
> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
>
> A counter argument to this RFC is available at
>
> I'd say this is not really a language concern and more tooling and testing
> problem. It's a class of a genuine mistake everybody does from time to time
> - be it wrong PHP tag, HTML tag or closing } added on the wrong line
> resulting in a logical error.
This is a direct consequence of the
чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 17:42, Chase Peeler :
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:18 AM Arvids Godjuks
> wrote:
>
>> чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 16:42, Peter Kokot :
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> Thanks for sharing your stories about issues. Maybe we should start
>>> also thinking about the impact on the language
чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 17:56, Robert Korulczyk :
> > Many people have talked about the potential impacts of keeping short
> tags.
> > I have yet to see anyone give an actual example where they have been
> > negatively impacted by their existence. I've given you my personal story
> of
> > how
чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 17:57, Peter Bowyer :
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 16:18, Arvids Godjuks
> wrote:
>
>> I really liked how language picked up the cleanup pace in the last few
>> years and it needs it. I finally see genuine interest in people to
>> actually
>> either come back or pick it up
> Many people have talked about the potential impacts of keeping short tags.
> I have yet to see anyone give an actual example where they have been
> negatively impacted by their existence. I've given you my personal story of
> how removing them will negatively impact my company. I welcome anyone
On 8/8/2019 3:26 AM, Côme Chilliet wrote:
Le mercredi 7 août 2019, 15:57:02 CEST Chase Peeler a écrit :
Pretty much everyone (if not actually
everyone) that is against this RFC has stated that they don't actually use
short tags, and do not advocate that anyone else use them either.
This is
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:18 AM Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 16:42, Peter Kokot :
>
>> Hello,
>> Thanks for sharing your stories about issues. Maybe we should start
>> also thinking about the impact on the language attractiveness to pick
>> it when starting a new web project
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 16:18, Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> BC is great, but you need to pull the cord at some point. And the whole
> short tag back and forth, with deprecation warning and stuff, has been
> around for last half a decade. It is time to accept that it needs to go
>
That's like saying
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:42 AM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 16:17, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:35 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM Brent wrote:
> > >
> > > > I asked similar questions on Twitter, where Zeev
чт, 8 авг. 2019 г. в 16:42, Peter Kokot :
> Hello,
> Thanks for sharing your stories about issues. Maybe we should start
> also thinking about the impact on the language attractiveness to pick
> it when starting a new web project since the core people can't come to
> conclusions how to make the
Hello,
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 16:17, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:35 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM Brent wrote:
> >
> > > I asked similar questions on Twitter, where Zeev replied the following:
> > >
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:35 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM Brent wrote:
>
> > I asked similar questions on Twitter, where Zeev replied the following:
> > https://mobile.twitter.com/zeevs/status/115865658046464
>
>
> I want to add a bit of color to this tweet:
> -
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM Brent wrote:
> I asked similar questions on Twitter, where Zeev replied the following:
> https://mobile.twitter.com/zeevs/status/115865658046464
I want to add a bit of color to this tweet:
- Estimated # of developers using PHP is at around 10M. This is based
On 8 August 2019 13:16:56 BST, Brent wrote:
>I asked similar questions on Twitter, where Zeev replied the
>following:
>
>> With an estimated number of PHP developers
>> at 10M, 1% is 100K. Whether I know this for
>> sure is not at all the point - it's never how we
>> take decisions. The question
> -Original Message-
> From: Brent [mailto:bre...@stitcher.io]
>
>
> It feels like much of the counter arguments are based on guesses without any
> real data to point to.
It goes both ways - the argument for removal states "This means that their use
is not possible in portable code,
I asked similar questions on Twitter, where Zeev replied the following:
https://mobile.twitter.com/zeevs/status/115865658046464
It feels like much of the counter arguments are based on guesses without any
real data to point to. On the other hand it's unfair to dismiss the counter
arguments
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 20:45, Sergey Panteleev wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> Perhaps I missed and someone already suggested,
> but didn't consider a compromise option:
> just change the default value short_open_tag=false,
> and DON'T removes the option from php.ini?
>
> If someone uses short tags - ok,
> -Original Message-
> From: Côme Chilliet [mailto:c...@opensides.be]
>
> This is what bugs me, the counter argument page from Zeev states «I never
> use short tags in any PHP code that I write, and as far as I recall - I never
> have. », and at the same time «put hundreds of thousands of
Le mercredi 7 août 2019, 15:57:02 CEST Chase Peeler a écrit :
> Pretty much everyone (if not actually
> everyone) that is against this RFC has stated that they don't actually use
> short tags, and do not advocate that anyone else use them either.
This is what bugs me, the counter argument page
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 00:38, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:39 AM Peter Kokot wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for such a detailed response. Ok, I understand then. Then
>> next logical step here is - I would maybe want to use these awesome
>> short tags also then.
>
>
> No
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:39 AM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Thank you for such a detailed response. Ok, I understand then. Then
> next logical step here is - I would maybe want to use these awesome
> short tags also then.
No disrespect Peter, but I really don't think you understand (my position).
I
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 21:25, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
>>
>> Considering that you're in favor of keeping the short opening tag in
>>
>> PHP "forever" because you haven't added any kind of other solution
>> either by now neither you see an issue
> PHP is, after all, built almost entirely on extensions. Those extensions can
> either be there, or not, enabled in the INI, or not. Do we consider code
> written containing functions from mysqli, gd or zip (just to name a few) to
> be non-portable because we can omit them from the INI (or just
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:14 PM Nicolas Grekas
wrote:
> Le mar. 6 août 2019 à 13:34, G. P. B. a écrit :
>
> > The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> > It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
> >
> > A counter argument to this RFC is available at
On 07/08/2019 20:45, Sergey Panteleev wrote:
Perhaps I missed and someone already suggested,
but didn't consider a compromise option:
just change the default value short_open_tag=false,
and DON'T removes the option from php.ini?
Without the other changes, this would lead to potentially
Hi there!
Perhaps I missed and someone already suggested,
but didn't consider a compromise option:
just change the default value short_open_tag=false,
and DON'T removes the option from php.ini?
If someone uses short tags - ok, they will change
the default value to true and everything will be as
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Considering that you're in favor of keeping the short opening tag in
>
PHP "forever" because you haven't added any kind of other solution
> either by now neither you see an issue with this... I think the worst
> situation for language is that
On 07/08/2019 18:44, Peter Kokot wrote:
I think the worst
situation for language is that there is an option to write non
portable code with this unfortunate short tag. It won't work
everywhere. So, this is already a reason for thinking forward (at
least from the progress and consistency point of
Hello,
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 19:03, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:00 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 18:56, Chase Peeler wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14,
Le mar. 6 août 2019 à 13:34, G. P. B. a écrit :
> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
>
> A counter argument to this RFC is available at
>
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:00 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 18:56, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Peter Kokot
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at
Hello.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 18:56, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a clarification that
>> > certain people from the group internals can veto
> On Aug 7, 2019, at 09:09, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>
>> On Aug 7, 2019, at 09:03, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 14:56, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>>
>>> I think when we adopt a Code of Conduct one of the things we need to
>>> make explicit is that "claiming authority that is not
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
> >
> > Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a clarification that
> > certain people from the group internals can veto particular RFC.
>
> Please could you point to where this alleged rule
> On Aug 7, 2019, at 09:03, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 14:56, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
>> I think when we adopt a Code of Conduct one of the things we need to
>> make explicit is that "claiming authority that is not codified" is
>> explicitly a thing that will not be allowed in
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 14:56, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> I think when we adopt a Code of Conduct one of the things we need to
> make explicit is that "claiming authority that is not codified" is
> explicitly a thing that will not be allowed in internals discussions
> as it seems to keep happening and
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
>
> Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a clarification that
> certain people from the group internals can veto particular RFC.
Please could you point to where this alleged rule has ever been
written down or agreed to?
Although certain
On 07/08/2019 09:11, Nikita Popov wrote:
To clarify: What I had in mind is that use of in PHP code requires an explicit short_tags=Off right now, so the
situation there shouldn't change, unless I'm missing something.
Since it would behave differently, it wouldn't make sense to say that it
On 7 Aug 2019, at 12:39, Christoph M. Becker
mailto:cmbecke...@gmx.de>> wrote:
As I understand it, this RFC has been put to vote again, because the first
version had some problematic details, and by courtesy to cater to the clamor
raised after
the voting had finished.
That is correct. There
On 07.08.2019 at 10:44, Peter Kokot wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:28, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:20 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>>
>>> This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : "
>>> This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different
Hello,
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:28, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:20 PM G. P. B. wrote:
> >
> > This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : "
> > This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different deprecation
> > approach."
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:55 PM Claude Pache wrote:
>
>
> > Le 6 août 2019 à 20:46, Nikita Popov a écrit :
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B.
> wrote:
> >
> >> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> >> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:20 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
> This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : "
> This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different deprecation
> approach." meaning that the previous one is void.
> I don't know why this is ambiguous and
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:55 PM Claude Pache wrote:
>
>
> > Le 6 août 2019 à 20:46, Nikita Popov a écrit :
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B.
> wrote:
> >
> >> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> >> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until
> Le 6 août 2019 à 20:46, Nikita Popov a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
>> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
>> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
>>
>> A counter argument to this RFC is available at
> On 6 Aug 2019, at 21:46, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>>
>> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
>> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
>>
>> A counter argument to this RFC is available at
>>
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B. wrote:
> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
>
> A counter argument to this RFC is available at
>
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:25, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:19 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:19 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean
>> the
>> > original RFC that passed is still in
Hello,
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:19, G. P. B. wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean
> > the
> > > original RFC that passed is still in
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean
> the
> > original RFC that passed is still in effect?
> >
>
>
> Yes, this is really ambiguous, and risks the
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
> I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean the
> original RFC that passed is still in effect?
>
Yes, this is really ambiguous, and risks the situation being even more
confusing than it was before.
The "No" column
I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean the
original RFC that passed is still in effect?
If I did have a vote, I would be against this RFC for the reasons laid out
by Zeev in the counter argument. However, I feel the negative impacts of
possible code leaks that will
The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
A counter argument to this RFC is available at
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counterargument/deprecate_php_short_tags
Best regards
George P. Banyard
[1]
, 2019 5:55 AM
To: Peter Kokot
Cc: Zeev Suraski; G. P. B.; Stanislav Malyshev; Derick Rethans; PHP Internals
List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:53 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 20:56, Peter Kok
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:55 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:53 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 20:56, Peter Kokot wrote:
> > >
> > > Not trying to rush anyone to something they have no energy working on
> > > anymore here but what's the
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:53 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 20:56, Peter Kokot wrote:
> >
> > Not trying to rush anyone to something they have no energy working on
> > anymore here but what's the plan here then? And what plan is there
> > with these short tags on the
Hello,
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 20:56, Peter Kokot wrote:
>
> Not trying to rush anyone to something they have no energy working on
> anymore here but what's the plan here then? And what plan is there
> with these short tags on the long run?
I'm just checking then why is this RFC in the pending
Not trying to rush anyone to something they have no energy working on
anymore here but what's the plan here then? And what plan is there
with these short tags on the long run?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:21 AM G. P. B. wrote:
> Evening internals,
>
> I am not going to go into the details of every email which got sent in the
> past two days as I am busy with Exam revision.
>
I was also kind of busy, but more importantly I wanted to wait a bit before
I reply - as my
Evening internals,
I am not going to go into the details of every email which got sent in the
past two days as I am busy with Exam revision.
Main take away that I got from the previous emails:
1. No discussion:
It is indeed true that there hasn't been a lot (to not say none) of
discussion after
Hi,
On Wed, May 1, 2019, 2:42 PM Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Every app will have different things to fix. So saying that this
> > particular change will break the internet is not realistic without any
> > numbers. If PHP is on a course to fix the BC break strategy then good
>
> I am
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:19 AM Peter Kokot wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 00:56, Stanislav Malyshev
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > > Worth noting another inconsistency here that we've missed. PHP 7.4 has
> > > introduced many BC breaks actually already. Without this level of
> > > problems:
> >
>
Hi!
> Every app will have different things to fix. So saying that this
> particular change will break the internet is not realistic without any
> numbers. If PHP is on a course to fix the BC break strategy then good
I am not saying it will break the internet. Nobody does. What I am
saying it
On 01/05/2019 01:19, Peter Kokot wrote:
I haven't seen code with short tags for such a long time now that this
is for me a problem on a scale of a fly. Because we've simply upgraded
all very very long time ago or in other words even never thought of
writing something in these tags anymore.
I
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 00:56, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Worth noting another inconsistency here that we've missed. PHP 7.4 has
> > introduced many BC breaks actually already. Without this level of
> > problems:
>
> Exactly, without. There's a difference between removing an
Hi!
> Worth noting another inconsistency here that we've missed. PHP 7.4 has
> introduced many BC breaks actually already. Without this level of
> problems:
Exactly, without. There's a difference between removing an unmaintained
extension which is barely used and setting people up for displaying
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 8:19 PM Michael Kliewe wrote:
> Some random thoughts:
> - What happens to .phar files? Do we have to scan the contents?
>
Phar relies upon the engine's tokenizer. If your phar build script uses createDefaultStub('index.php');
$phar->setStub($stub);
$ php -d
Hello,
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 20:25, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:14 PM Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:32 PM G. P. B.
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think this just boils down to what is an acceptable
Hello,
a bit of fuzz; no need having a dramatic posture either; php RFC system
needs to be matured; the same way
than c++ fellowship (I don't say it was without dramas over the years); in
my opinion there are two many of them
opened at the same time; some targets strictly the userspace; some
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:14 PM Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:32 PM G. P. B.
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think this just boils down to what is an acceptable majority, if
> > > 2/3 is not enough then 3/4 but this is another debate
1 - 100 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
