Hi everyone,
This is to announce the opening of the vote for the ValueError Conversions
RFC.
RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions
Discussion thread: https://externals.io/message/130090
The vote will be open for 2 weeks (and a few hours), closing on March 17th
at midnight UTC.
Cheers,
Muhammed Arshid
Am 03.03.2026 um 09:37 schrieb Muhammed Arshid KV arshidkv12@gmail.com:
This is to announce the opening of the vote for the ValueError Conversions RFC.
RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions
Discussion thread: https://externals.io/message/130090
The vote will be open for 2 weeks (and a few hours), closing on March 17th at midnight UTC.
What happened to the E_WARNING phase which was mentioned in the discussion and is normally used for stuff like this?
Compare https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecations_php_8_6#backward_incompatible_changes
In the current form it is a "No" from me and I'd appreciate if we settle the "Exempt input type and value validation from BC Break policy" question first before side-stepping the previously used warning phase.
Regards,
- Chris
Hi
Am 2026-03-03 09:37, schrieb Muhammed Arshid KV:
This is to announce the opening of the vote for the ValueError
Conversions
RFC.RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions
Discussion thread: https://externals.io/message/130090The vote will be open for 2 weeks (and a few hours), closing on March
17th
at midnight UTC.
There are no voting options available in the RFC for reasons that are
unclear to me. Looking at the page’s source code I don't see an obvious
mistake with regard to the markup for the voting doodle.
I'm however noting that the options do not include the “Abstain” option
that is required per our policy:
https://github.com/php/policies/blob/main/feature-proposals.rst#required-majority
I am also unable to find an “Intent to Vote” announcement for this RFC
in the mailing list archives and the corresponding discussion thread is
only 12 days old as of now (which is less than the cooldown period of 14
days after the initial proposal). As such the start of the vote is
violating our current policy in multiple points.
I also don't think that this RFC has properly been discussed and I don't
feel it is productive to individually vote on every case of properly
validating input parameters. This warrants a generic decision, such as
the one proposed by Gina in her “Exempt input type and value validation
from BC Break policy” RFC: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130221
Given the clear policy violation regarding the vote, I request the vote
be canceled. I would also recommend to withdraw the RFC in favor of
Gina’s - but that is your decision as the RFC author of course.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
Thank you for your feedback.
I have added an "Abstain" option as well.
Bukka also shared a suggestion regarding this RFC.
Please check the latest message here:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/20971#issuecomment-3923902448
Hi
Am 2026-03-03 09:37, schrieb Muhammed Arshid KV:
This is to announce the opening of the vote for the ValueError
Conversions
RFC.RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions
Discussion thread: https://externals.io/message/130090The vote will be open for 2 weeks (and a few hours), closing on March
17th
at midnight UTC.There are no voting options available in the RFC for reasons that are
unclear to me. Looking at the page’s source code I don't see an obvious
mistake with regard to the markup for the voting doodle.I'm however noting that the options do not include the “Abstain” option
that is required per our policy:https://github.com/php/policies/blob/main/feature-proposals.rst#required-majority
I am also unable to find an “Intent to Vote” announcement for this RFC
in the mailing list archives and the corresponding discussion thread is
only 12 days old as of now (which is less than the cooldown period of 14
days after the initial proposal). As such the start of the vote is
violating our current policy in multiple points.I also don't think that this RFC has properly been discussed and I don't
feel it is productive to individually vote on every case of properly
validating input parameters. This warrants a generic decision, such as
the one proposed by Gina in her “Exempt input type and value validation
from BC Break policy” RFC: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130221Given the clear policy violation regarding the vote, I request the vote
be canceled. I would also recommend to withdraw the RFC in favor of
Gina’s - but that is your decision as the RFC author of course.Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
Hi
Am 2026-03-03 09:37, schrieb Muhammed Arshid KV:
This is to announce the opening of the vote for the ValueError
Conversions
RFC.RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions
Discussion thread: https://externals.io/message/130090The vote will be open for 2 weeks (and a few hours), closing on March
17th
at midnight UTC.There are no voting options available in the RFC for reasons that are
unclear to me. Looking at the page’s source code I don't see an obvious
mistake with regard to the markup for the voting doodle.I'm however noting that the options do not include the “Abstain” option
that is required per our policy:https://github.com/php/policies/blob/main/feature-proposals.rst#required-majority
I am also unable to find an “Intent to Vote” announcement for this RFC
in the mailing list archives and the corresponding discussion thread is
only 12 days old as of now (which is less than the cooldown period of 14
days after the initial proposal). As such the start of the vote is
violating our current policy in multiple points.I also don't think that this RFC has properly been discussed and I don't
feel it is productive to individually vote on every case of properly
validating input parameters. This warrants a generic decision, such as
the one proposed by Gina in her “Exempt input type and value validation
from BC Break policy” RFC: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130221Given the clear policy violation regarding the vote, I request the vote
be canceled. I would also recommend to withdraw the RFC in favor of
Gina’s - but that is your decision as the RFC author of course.Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
Hi Muhammed
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions
Thank you for your feedback.
I have added an "Abstain" option as well.
The voting widgets are still broken. The vote is open but no options
are available. It looks like the indentation is off:
" * Yes" is incorrect, there need to be three spaces before the
options, i.e. " * Yes".
Ilija
Hi Ilija,
The voting widgets are still broken. The vote is open but no options
are available. It looks like the indentation is off:" * Yes" is incorrect, there need to be three spaces before the
options, i.e. " * Yes".
Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed the indentation, and the voting
options should now be visible.
Best regards,
Muhammed Arshid
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 1:37 PM Muhammed Arshid KV arshidkv12@gmail.com
wrote:
Thank you for your feedback.
I have added an "Abstain" option as well.
Bukka also shared a suggestion regarding this RFC.
Please check the latest message here:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/20971#issuecomment-3923902448
As Tim noted, there has been several important voting rules not followed so
this voting is invalid. This is understandable as you are new here but you
need to stop the vote. Personally I would prefer this to get voted closer
to the alpha release so more cases can be added. There is no urgency to
start voting now.
Kind regards,
Jakub
Hi
As Tim noted, there has been several important voting rules not followed
so this voting is invalid. This is understandable as you are new here but
you need to stop the vote. Personally I would prefer this to get voted
closer to the alpha release so more cases can be added. There is no
urgency to start voting now.
Thank you
The vote is now closed.
Hey Muhammed,
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 09:38, Muhammed Arshid KV arshidkv12@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi everyone,
This is to announce the opening of the vote for the ValueError
Conversions RFC.RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions
Discussion thread: https://externals.io/message/130090The vote will be open for 2 weeks (and a few hours), closing on March 17th
at midnight UTC.Cheers,
Muhammed Arshid
I voted "yes" on most options except error_log().
My rationale is that while hardening the filesystem-related functions you
noted in the RFC may highlight system issues, or even prevent security
issues, the error_log() function is everywhere in legacy code, and it
does not pose any risk if the parameters are misused (and silently ignored).
In fact, error_log() should not be used, but rather replaced by calls to
any PSR-3 compliant logger anyway.
Changing error_log() poses only burden on those that still have it in
their codebases.
Marco Pivetta