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

On 27.09.2022 at 22:11, Larry Garfield wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, at 3:01 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > >> 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. > > 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. I'm generally not too happy with secondary votes. Sometimes you only support the primary vote for certain secondary options; to "be sure" that another secondary option won't "win", you'd need to vote "no" on the primary choice. I'd prefer a single vote with pre-selected details. I don't have any particular preference in this case, though. -- Christoph M. Becker