Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:30518 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71721 invoked by uid 1010); 6 Jul 2007 14:49:59 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71696 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2007 14:49:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jul 2007 14:49:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=scottmac@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=scottmac@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 72.36.186.210 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: scottmac@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 72.36.186.210 midden.org.uk Received: from [72.36.186.210] ([72.36.186.210:39178] helo=lovelace.midden.org.uk) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C4/50-50692-1965E864 for ; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:49:59 -0400 Received: from office.vbulletin.com ([217.155.246.60] helo=[10.0.0.116]) by lovelace.midden.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I6p7z-0007vA-SQ; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:49:48 +0100 Message-ID: <468E5682.3010100@php.net> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:49:38 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derick Rethans CC: PHP Developers Mailing List References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RIP PHP 4? From: scottmac@php.net (Scott MacVicar) Derick Rethans wrote: > Ladies, Gentlemen, Kings and Princesses, > > With the nice PHP 5 / PHP 6 unicode semantics thread under way I am > trying to gauge what people feel about dropping support for PHP 4 at the > end of this year. That does not mean that we will not fix security > issues, we have to as the install base is too large, but that would be > the only thing that would warrant a new release. I already sort of > mentioned this on april 1st, but I think we should come with a slightly > more official statement. Your votes please (only -1 and +1 are > allowed)! > > regards, > Derick > +1 (It's been a long time coming.) Scott