Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89697
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.48 as permitted sender)
References: <d7986bddhrs5d7o2c6r42g6h9to3au5kq0@4ax.com> <CAH-PCH4_NWEt8WzEhsh1f1SLFnG-NUSJ_BeiSoMP7FsQ2PRpkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c-DCWVNyk+3u-f4drdmh8PbJiip4q=vM775HiTjKFimsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b739c4a6adcd67f36ff4f20d5b28d189@mail.gmail.com> <566485DD.7010504@garfieldtech.com>
 <012901d1305d$aa68ed30$ff3ac790$@belski.net> <1B431280-0C1A-4426-8F9E-C07F3ECA773F@heroku.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1512071040490.3354@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1512071040490.3354@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQHgh9Y9UJHbSHpdKU+NswaLC82f2wIq/m6HAMeq+ucCFzVLDwJ+ORzvAc6WXQMByRn+dgE/xg+7nj2wozA=
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:03:58 +0200
Message-ID: <c4835fb91c092fba4735eaf088898b8d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, David Zuelke <dz@heroku.com>, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, 
	internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:derick@php.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 12:41 PM
> To: David Zuelke
> Cc: Anatol Belski; Larry Garfield; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle
>
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, David Zuelke wrote:
>
> > On 06.12.2015, at 20:38, Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net> wrote:
> >
> > > From today's perspective, I'd suggest to extend the security only
period
> of 5.6.
> >
> > That would be my suggestion too.
> >
> > End "full" support in, say, December 2016 (a year after 7.0.0), but
> > then give it two years of security fixes instead of just one.
>
> I think that's indeed the most sensible option. Normal support to Dec
2106,
> and security til 2018.

Are you really suggesting to end security fixes 88 years before we end
normal support? :)

Typos aside, that's what I'm leaning towards as well.  As I said in one of
my initial notes, I think that ultimately what users care about primarily
is the security support and less so about the 'full maintenance'.  That's
what defines the true lifetime of a version.

Ferenc - do you still feel strongly that we should defer the decision into
a later time?  I want to know whether to include that as an option in the
RFC.  Personally - while there are pros and cons to both directions, I'm
leaning more towards having a clearly defined timeline that we decide on
in advance.

Zeev