Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89657 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44796 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2015 16:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Dec 2015 16:53:50 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 95.96.66.100 095-096-066-100.static.chello.nl Received: from [95.96.66.100] ([95.96.66.100:15335] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F2/A6-08340-C1864665 for ; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 11:53:48 -0500 To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2015 17:53:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 95.96.66.100 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle From: phpdev@ehrhardt.nl (Jan Ehrhardt) Ferenc Kovacs in php.internals (Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:32:25 +0100): >Since the rfc for 5.7 failed the voting I've personally assumed that we >don't want to support the 5.x series after the normal lifecycle for 5.6: >https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57 That RFC was based on a proposed timeline for PHP7 with a GA release "Mid October 2015". We did not make that. And, besides that, we are living almost a year later now. An accepted RFC of one year ago should not stop us thinking about what we think is the best option now. -- Jan