Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79656 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40282 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2014 16:53:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Dec 2014 16:53:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:34155] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 87/12-16076-2121F845 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:53:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98BB310C032; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:53:34 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:53:34 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Pierre Joye cc: Zeev Suraski , PHP internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On the road to PHP 5.7 , or not ? From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Dec 12, 2014 9:34 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote: > > > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Julien Pauli wrote: > > > > > So the main question is : *What version will we release next year ?* > > > > > > Will we have a PHP 5.7, or jump directly to a 7.0 ? > > > > > > Don't forget, that if we go for a 5.7 , then we won't have a 7.0 at > > > least one year later. > > > > We have accepted the timeline for 7, so we need to stick to that: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline#vote > > > > I hate to say that but if we stick to rules, this rfc and its result are > totally invalid and should be canceled. What a bonkers statement. Just because you don't agree it's not "totally invalid". I think 34 vs 2 is a pretty solid argument for sticking to it. cheers, Derick