Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118695
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-968-g04df58079d-fm-20220921.001-g04df5807
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <720bc406-78f1-4f4f-b0fa-00c6eb541523@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <76b3ab60-8865-a0aa-3949-f9276cd35149@bastelstu.be>
References: <530b3a9d-0ee4-6061-8c69-df672d238032@bastelstu.be>
 <628f27cd-d7f0-4a75-bf5b-f4812ff459a5@www.fastmail.com>
 <2474d6fc-a61d-19e8-b903-ff389dbb9ff6@bastelstu.be>
 <de7c9a48-6ffb-4b48-831b-00f1a24cd7af@www.fastmail.com>
 <e2d62544-2b2e-d67f-5452-187971a56068@bastelstu.be>
 <d27551ce-78da-49b1-8531-41c2d5e97036@www.fastmail.com>
 <76b3ab60-8865-a0aa-3949-f9276cd35149@bastelstu.be>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 15:11:06 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC [Discussion]: Improve unserialize() error handling
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, at 3:01 PM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 9/8/22 18:36, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>>> Either I guess?  Honestly we should decide that in advance on the l=
ist. :-)  E_WARNING+Exception in 9 is what I'd probably favor, with "Exc=
eption 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, Except=
ion in 9" vote would not be unprecedented.
>>=20
>
> Thank you, I thought about what to do here and I've adjusted the optio=
ns=20
> 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=20
> the vote's results is sound? A ranked choice vote should not necessary=20
> here, because the three options follow a natural order with regard to=20
> severity/possible breakage.
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

Predicting people's second-place choice is risky business.  This assumpt=
ion seems logical on its face, but I'm sure there are people that will b=
uck your expectations.

> The reasoning is that unless =E2=80=9CE_WARNING in 8.x without future =
decision=E2=80=9D receives more than 50%, more than 50% prefer an Except=
ion no later than 9.0. Unless =E2=80=9CUnserializationFailedException in=
 8.x=E2=80=9D receives more than 50%, more than 50% prefer no Exception =
in 8.x.=20

If you want to go that route, I'd go all the way to an RCV vote and be d=
one 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