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 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
