[VOTE] PSR-6 Errata

[Larry Garfield]

I hereby open a vote for the following Errata for PSR-6:

https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/787

Basically, it's a vote to merge that PR.

The vote will be open for 2 weeks, closing on 2 September 2016 @ 23:59 UTC.

As usual, the vote is open to voting representatives only and is a
simple +1/-1 vote.

I definitely appreciate the point that an InvalidArgumentException would
have been better, and had this issue been brought up during the Review
phase I'd probably have gone that direction. However, adding an
exception does count as an API change, albeit a small one, so I am not
comfortable with that direction in an Errata. (Obviously if you feel
that this is a bad decision, vote -1.)

--Larry Garfield

[Fabien Potencier]

-1 Symfony

Triggering a E_USER_ERROR in Symfony is a no-go. We would be more than
happy to implement the InvalidArgumentException alternative though.

[Matteo Beccati]

-1 from Revive Adserver.

I feel that failing with an E_USER_ERROR that can't be caught is an even
bigger API change. Almost evil, I would say.

--
Matteo Beccati

Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/

[Alexander Makarov]

- 1 from Yii framework. It's very significant backwards compatibility change.

[Leo Feyer]

-1 from Contao

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

-1 from Jackalope

not sure here what to do .. feels a bit like a precedent .. its a clear omission, yet any fix is a BC break (classic bug fix is kinda always a BC break). so if we do a BC break, then rather the exception .. if we don’t want to break BC, we release a new PSR with this fix (since just versioning the PSR to 6.1 isn’t’ semver for a BC break)?

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/e9508662-70c7-e91a-05ff-82c8dfb59884%40garfieldtech.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
sm...@pooteeweet.org

[Dracony]

+1 from PHPixie

[Andres Gutierrez]

-1 from Phalcon

[Paul Jones]

-1 from Aura et al.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/e9508662-70c7-e91a-05ff-82c8dfb59884%40garfieldtech.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com

[Fabien Potencier]

On 8/22/16 00:09, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> -1 from Jackalope
>
> not sure here what to do .. feels a bit like a precedent .. its a clear omission, yet any fix is a BC break (classic bug fix is kinda always a BC break). so if we do a BC break, then rather the exception .. if we don’t want to break BC, we release a new PSR with this fix (since just versioning the PSR to 6.1 isn’t’ semver for a BC break)?

I think we need to see what current implementations do. From what I
understand reading the code:

* Stash already throws an InvalidArgumentException (467 981 Packagist
installs)
* Symfony already throws an InvalidArgumentException (48 233 Packagist
installs)
* php-cache injects the value without any check (43 786 Packagist installs)

That's for the implementations with the most installations on Packagist.
Having a look at the other implementations, most of them do like php-cache.

So, as most of (2 is probably not significant but Stash has many
installs) the "major" implementations already throws an
InvalidArgumentException, why not just document that in PSR-6? I
understand the BC break and all, but can't we be a bit pragmatic here
(or is it just a classic French/latin way of thinking)?

Fabien

[Chuck Burgess]

-1 from PEAR

CRB
about.me/ashnazg

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Fabien Potencier <fabien.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/22/16 00:09, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

-1 from Jackalope

not sure here what to do .. feels a bit like a precedent .. its a clear omission, yet any fix is a BC break (classic bug fix is kinda always a BC break). so if we do a BC break, then rather the exception .. if we don’t want to break BC, we release a new PSR with this fix (since just versioning the PSR to 6.1 isn’t’ semver for a BC break)?

I think we need to see what current implementations do. From what I understand reading the code:

* Stash already throws an InvalidArgumentException (467 981 Packagist installs)
* Symfony already throws an InvalidArgumentException (48 233 Packagist installs)
* php-cache injects the value without any check (43 786 Packagist installs)

That's for the implementations with the most installations on Packagist. Having a look at the other implementations, most of them do like php-cache.

So, as most of (2 is probably not significant but Stash has many installs) the "major" implementations already throws an InvalidArgumentException, why not just document that in PSR-6? I understand the BC break and all, but can't we be a bit pragmatic here (or is it just a classic French/latin way of thinking)?

Fabien

On 19 Aug 2016, at 20:43, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:

I hereby open a vote for the following Errata for PSR-6:

https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/787

Basically, it's a vote to merge that PR.

The vote will be open for 2 weeks, closing on 2 September 2016 @ 23:59 UTC.

As usual, the vote is open to voting representatives only and is a simple +1/-1 vote.

I definitely appreciate the point that an InvalidArgumentException would have been better, and had this issue been brought up during the Review phase I'd probably have gone that direction.  However, adding an exception does count as an API change, albeit a small one, so I am not comfortable with that direction in an Errata. (Obviously if you feel that this is a bad decision, vote -1.)

--Larry Garfield

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/e9508662-70c7-e91a-05ff-82c8dfb59884%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
sm...@pooteeweet.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/d039869b-f515-f0d9-e2d4-89802a533a5d%40gmail.com.

[Korvin Szanto]

+1 concrete5

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/e9508662-70c7-e91a-05ff-82c8dfb59884%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
sm...@pooteeweet.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/d039869b-f515-f0d9-e2d4-89802a533a5d%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CANsgjnu3dMBPxRj4V1a-JgPz9QJwAr-iO868TpOgH4jS4fMP%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Larry Garfield]

+1

--Larry Garfield, Drupal

(I should probably vote on my on vote, shouldn't I...)

[Michael Cullum]

Hi all,

Sorry we're announcing this late. It appears the secretaries google calendar glitched and therefore neglected to notify us of the end of the vote.

The quorum was set at 13 with a membership of 38. Therefore with only 11 voters (29%) the vote did not pass. Even if quorum had been achieved, a majority was not.

Full statistics:

Number of Non-Voters		27
Positive Votes		3
Negative Votes		8
Abstain Votes		0
Voters		11
Total Number of Members		38
Quorum Number		13
Quorum Met		No
Percentage Voted		29%
Percentage of Voters Positive		27%
Percentage of Voters Negative		73%
Percentage of Members Voted Positive		8%
Percentage of Members Voted Negative		21%
Sponsor/Vote Starter		Larry Garfield
Secretary/Returning Officer		Michael Cullum
Finish Date		12/08/2016
Passing (Over 50% of cast votes & Quorum)		No
Over 50% of Members Voted Positive		No

A full tally is viewable on the FIG voting sheet here

--

Michael C

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/cb0a916e-9f85-de38-bae1-f9bc620dad40%40garfieldtech.com.

[Larry Garfield]

Hm.  Well, I had been planning to offer an alternate vote on using InvalidArgumentException should the first one fail, as that was the most likely objection.  However, if the vote didn't even meet quorum then I don't know if it's even worth doing that. 

Hopefully should FIG 3 pass the Core Committee can take up this question more effectively, but I don't know that there's a reason to bother if we're not even going to make quorum.

--Larry Garfield

[Fabien Potencier]

Please, offer the alternative, let's discuss and vote

Symfony will definitely vote +1 for it as we think this is VERY
important to "fix" this.

Thanks,
Fabien

On 9/5/16 08:39, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Hm. Well, I had been planning to offer an alternate vote on using
> InvalidArgumentException should the first one fail, as that was the most
> likely objection. However, if the vote didn't even meet quorum then I
> don't know if it's even worth doing that.
>
> Hopefully should FIG 3 pass the Core Committee can take up this question
> more effectively, but I don't know that there's a reason to bother if
> we're not even going to make quorum.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
> On 09/04/2016 10:55 AM, Michael Cullum wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry we're announcing this late. It appears the secretaries google
>> calendar glitched and therefore neglected to notify us of the end of
>> the vote.
>>
>> The quorum was set at 13 with a membership of 38. Therefore with only
>> 11 voters (29%) the vote did not pass. Even if quorum had been
>> achieved, a majority was not.
>>

>> *Full statistics:*
>> *
>> *

>> Number of Non-Voters 27
>> Positive Votes 3
>> Negative Votes 8
>> Abstain Votes 0
>> Voters 11
>> Total Number of Members 38
>> Quorum Number 13
>> Quorum Met No
>> Percentage Voted 29%
>> Percentage of Voters Positive 27%
>> Percentage of Voters Negative 73%
>> Percentage of Members Voted Positive 8%
>> Percentage of Members Voted Negative 21%
>> Sponsor/Vote Starter Larry Garfield
>> Secretary/Returning Officer Michael Cullum
>> Finish Date 12/08/2016
>> Passing (Over 50% of cast votes & Quorum) No
>> Over 50% of Members Voted Positive No
>>
>>
>> A full tally is viewable on the FIG voting sheet here

>> <http://bit.ly/fig-voting-2016>

>>
>> --
>> Michael C
>>
>> On 31 August 2016 at 15:52, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com

>> <mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com>> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> --Larry Garfield, Drupal
>>
>> (I should probably vote on my on vote, shouldn't I...)
>>
>> On 08/19/2016 01:43 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>
>> I hereby open a vote for the following Errata for PSR-6:
>>
>> https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/787
>> <https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/787>
>>
>> Basically, it's a vote to merge that PR.
>>
>> The vote will be open for 2 weeks, closing on 2 September 2016
>> @ 23:59 UTC.
>>
>> As usual, the vote is open to voting representatives only and
>> is a simple +1/-1 vote.
>>
>> I definitely appreciate the point that an
>> InvalidArgumentException would have been better, and had this
>> issue been brought up during the Review phase I'd probably
>> have gone that direction. However, adding an exception does
>> count as an API change, albeit a small one, so I am not
>> comfortable with that direction in an Errata. (Obviously if
>> you feel that this is a bad decision, vote -1.)
>>
>> --Larry Garfield
>>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:php...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/49fbb4ed-fba8-09f1-9dbd-c084eb0bbcea%40garfieldtech.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/49fbb4ed-fba8-09f1-9dbd-c084eb0bbcea%40garfieldtech.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Adam Culp]

For some reason I didn't even see this vote until the closing post and Larry's follow-up. Very sorry, I've been busy. Thought I was keeping up better. :-(

Regards,

Adam Culp

[Jason Coward]

I too was putting it off so I could review more in-depth and didn't realize it already closed. I did mean to vote. I would also be interested in seeing the alternative for another vote.

Sincerely,

Jason Coward
Slim Framework

Adam Culp

September 5, 2016 at 2:22 PM

For some reason I didn't even see this vote until the closing post and Larry's follow-up. Very sorry, I've been busy. Thought I was keeping up better. :-(

Regards,

Adam Culp

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 11:39:50 AM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/151630fe-e931-4ec2-b097-8ccc5a629755%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Larry Garfield

September 5, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Hm.  Well, I had been planning to offer an alternate vote on using InvalidArgumentException should the first one fail, as that was the most likely objection.  However, if the vote didn't even meet quorum then I don't know if it's even worth doing that. 

Hopefully should FIG 3 pass the Core Committee can take up this question more effectively, but I don't know that there's a reason to bother if we're not even going to make quorum.

--Larry Garfield

On 09/04/2016 10:55 AM, Michael Cullum wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/49fbb4ed-fba8-09f1-9dbd-c084eb0bbcea%40garfieldtech.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Michael Cullum

September 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAAqcDMiKm%3DpfbS9nznv7nUBtL9Ua-cSJmjWtJpThu%3DLE_ZJztQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matteo Beccati]

On 05/09/2016 17:39, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Hm. Well, I had been planning to offer an alternate vote on using
> InvalidArgumentException should the first one fail, as that was the most
> likely objection. However, if the vote didn't even meet quorum then I
> don't know if it's even worth doing that.

I'll add my voice to the count. Let's offer the alternate vote, please.

> Hopefully should FIG 3 pass the Core Committee can take up this question
> more effectively, but I don't know that there's a reason to bother if
> we're not even going to make quorum.

TBH, I find this a bit scary. In fact if FIG 3's Core Committee was
already in place, there's a chance the Errata would have passed in the
current form. :-|


Cheers

[Daniel Hunsaker]

> Hopefully should FIG 3 pass the Core Committee can take up this question
> more effectively, but I don't know that there's a reason to bother if
> we're not even going to make quorum.

TBH, I find this a bit scary. In fact if FIG 3's Core Committee was
already in place, there's a chance the Errata would have passed in the
current form. :-|

Quoracy wasn't the only thing that prevented it from passing - there were still considerably more (about 3 times more) -1 votes than +1 votes.  So even with just the CC voting it likely would have failed to pass.

----

I'm also interested in the alternate proposal, since the discussion leading up to the one voted down here indicated that we really didn't have any other options that didn't violate the rest of the spec itself.  And since we can't revise a spec to a newer version without replacing it outright (new PSR number, deprecate current one), it didn't seem there were any other options...

[Larry Garfield]

On 09/08/2016 09:31 PM, Daniel Hunsaker wrote:

> Hopefully should FIG 3 pass the Core Committee can take up this question
> more effectively, but I don't know that there's a reason to bother if
> we're not even going to make quorum.

TBH, I find this a bit scary. In fact if FIG 3's Core Committee was
already in place, there's a chance the Errata would have passed in the
current form. :-|

Quoracy wasn't the only thing that prevented it from passing - there were still considerably more (about 3 times more) -1 votes than +1 votes.  So even with just the CC voting it likely would have failed to pass.

Yeah, I don't expect the vote ratio to have been different were the CC in place; it's the lack of quorum that, hopefully, the CC will help to address.

--Larry Garfield