Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118696
Message-ID: <5c02132b-59b7-81dc-bd9f-a9d9210f7721@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:41:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.3.0
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>,
 php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
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>
 <720bc406-78f1-4f4f-b0fa-00c6eb541523@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <720bc406-78f1-4f4f-b0fa-00c6eb541523@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC [Discussion]: Improve unserialize() error handling
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")

On 27.09.2022 at 22:11, Larry Garfield wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, at 3:01 PM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
>
>> Thank you, I thought about what to do here and I've adjusted the option=
s
>> 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 assumpt=
ion seems logical on its face, but I'm sure there are people that will buc=
k your expectations.
>
>> The reasoning is that unless =E2=80=9CE_WARNING in 8.x without future d=
ecision=E2=80=9D receives more than 50%, more than 50% prefer an Exception=
 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=
.
>
> 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 an=
d 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.

=2D-
Christoph M. Becker