# [RFC] [VOTE]ValueError Conversions for PHP 8.6 - Thread: https://externals.io/message/130232 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130232 - Started by Muhammed Arshid KV on 2026-03-03T08:37:38+00:00 - Messages: 9 - RFC: Grouped ValueError Conversions (Inactive) — https://externals.io/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions.md - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · RFCs at https://externals.io/rfc.md · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #130232 — Muhammed Arshid KV — 2026-03-03T08:37:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130232#130232 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 --- ## #130234 — Christian Schneider — 2026-03-03T09:48:49+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130232#130234 · In reply to: #130232 Am 03.03.2026 um 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/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 --- ## #130235 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-03-03T11:56:49+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130232#130235 · In reply to: #130232 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/130090 > > The 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 --- ## #130237 — Muhammed Arshid KV — 2026-03-03T12:34:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130232#130237 · In reply to: #130235 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: > > […] > > 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 > Hi > > Am 2026-03-03 09:37, schrieb Muhammed Arshid KV: > > […] > > 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 --- ## #130239 — Ilija Tovilo — 2026-03-03T15:28:30+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130232#130239 · In reply to: #130237 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 --- ## #130243 — Muhammed Arshid KV — 2026-03-03T16:38:54+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130232#130243 · In reply to: #130239 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 --- ## #130255 — Marco Pivetta — 2026-03-05T04:20:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130232#130255 · In reply to: #130232 Hey Muhammed, On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 09:38, Muhammed Arshid KV 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/130090 > > The 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 https://mastodon.social/@ocramius https://ocramius.github.io/ --- ## #130258 — Jakub Zelenka — 2026-03-05T08:02:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130232#130258 · In reply to: #130237 Hi, On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 1:37 PM Muhammed Arshid KV 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 --- ## #130260 — Muhammed Arshid KV — 2026-03-05T09:03:25+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130232#130260 · In reply to: #130258 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.