Re: RFC [Discussion]: Improve unserialize() error handling

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, at 3:01 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Hi > > On 9/8/22 18:36, Larry Garfield wrote: >>>> Either I guess? Honestly we should decide that in advance on the list. :-) >>>> E_WARNING+Exception in 9 is what I'd probably favor, with "Exception now" as a second >>>> choice. >>>> >> We've done this kind of two-step thing before; a lot of PHP 8 changes were voted on >> well in advance of 8.0's release. A "Warning now, Exception in 9" vote would not be >> unprecedented. >> > > Thank you, I thought about what to do here and I've adjusted the options > in the "increase to what" vote to make this a 3-way vote: > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/improve_unserialize_error_handling#increasing_the_severity_of_existing_warningsnotices > > Do you believe that my reasoning with regard to the interpretation of > the vote's results is sound? A ranked choice vote should not necessary > here, because the three options follow a natural order with regard to > severity/possible breakage. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus Predicting people's second-place choice is risky business. This assumption seems logical on its face, but I'm sure there are people that will buck your expectations. > The reasoning is that unless “E_WARNING in 8.x without future decision” receives more than > 50%, more than 50% prefer an Exception no later than 9.0. Unless “UnserializationFailedException > in 8.x” receives more than 50%, more than 50% prefer no Exception in 8.x. If you want to go that route, I'd go all the way to an RCV vote and be done with it. Or else just make an executive decision as the RFC author and let the chips fall where they may. Anyone else want to weigh in here on the timeline? --Larry Garfield