Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Reclassifying engine warnings

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
  107327
September 26, 2019 09:48 petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn)
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 08:42, Nikita Popov ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:17 PM Nikita Popov ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi internals, > > > > I've opened the vote on //wiki.php.net/rfc/engine_warnings. > > > > There are 4 votes, all of them independent. The first 3 are for specific > > cases that were controversial during the discussion, the last one is for > > the remainder of the proposal. > > > > Voting closes 2019-09-26. > > > > Voting has closed with the final outcome being: > > * Undefined variables: 36 exception, 18 warning, 10 notice. Exception > declined with 56% in favor. Warning accepted with 84% combined majority. >
I just want to go on the record in saying that I am very, very disappointed that a choice that only got 28% of the overall votes, and only 33% of votes in the "we want change" scenario, is being taken as the will of the overwhelming majority, which is the bar that is needed to be crossed for RFC votes. This is wholly irresponsible.
> * Undefined array index: 42 warning, 21 notice. Warning accepted with 2/3 > majority. > * Division by zero: 52 exception, 8 warning. Exception accepted with 87% > majority. > * Remainder: 54 yes, 3 no. Accepted with 95% majority. > > Regards, > Nikita >
  107334
September 26, 2019 12:20 rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 10:48, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just want to go on the record in saying that I am very, very disappointed > that a choice that only got 28% of the overall votes, and only 33% of votes > in the "we want change" scenario, is being taken as the will of the > overwhelming majority, which is the bar that is needed to be crossed for > RFC votes. This is wholly irresponsible. >
Three-way votes are always tricky in this respect, but I think in this case Nikita has taken a very sensible approach. Firstly, the interpretation of the three-way vote was laid out very clearly on the page, and I'm not aware of anyone objecting to it prior to this point. Secondly, it makes sense intuitively: it seems unlikely that someone who would vote yes to the question "Should undefined variables give an Error instead of a Notice?" would vote no to the question "Should undefined variables give a Warning instead of a Notice?" Thirdly, the options are not mutually exclusive in the way that, say, a syntax decision would be. Raising the level to Warning now doesn't prevent a future proposal to raise it to Error (e.g. on a different timescale). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, RFC votes are intended to be measures of consensus. Taken alongside the discussion, the result strongly suggests that there is a consensus (but not a unanimous one) to change the error level, but there is some concern about raising it as high as Error. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]