Hi Pascal,
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 23:41 +0100, Pascal Chevrel wrote:
> Out of curiosity I read both the Voting and Release Process RFCs and
> couldn't find any mention of a rule stating that all votes had to be
> approved before the first alpha, if I overlooked it, please correct me.
> Also, If you look at the wikipedia definition of an alpha in, I believe
> that it is still time to add features:
No, that rule wasn't written down, but the release process came to live
out of consequence of us pushing things in quite late in the game and I
fear we run exactly in the same direction, again.
> Also, isn't it to the Release Manager role to make such decisions?
[...]
> The document linked is:
> https://wiki.php.net/todo/php56#timetable
[...]
> The RFC was created before the first alpha, the voting phase is now and
> if the result of the vote is a yes, then it has until mid-March to be
> included. At least that's how I read it.
Yes, there is no strict rule, but still we're not talking about a small
change here but a language change (a small language change, but still)
and I merely wish that this fact is considered by voters. Ideally the
proposer would have added options for 5.6 and the following version.
(Actually I hadn't reviewed the proposal before and from a quick look at
it there seems to be a design flaw around inheritance with code like
this:
class Base { public $p; function __construct($this->p = 42); }
Class E extends Base { function __construct($this->p = 23) { parent::__construct(); }
new E;
leading to probably unexpected results ... also
class C { public function m($foo->prop){}}
becomes valid syntax and leads to (fatal) runtime errors, this might
even be true for non-class function declarations ... but I haven't
really checked, I assume voters will)
johannes