Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89707 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26784 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2015 14:28:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Dec 2015 14:28:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=sebastian@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=sebastian@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 188.94.27.5 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: sebastian@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 188.94.27.5 scarlet.netpirates.net Received: from [188.94.27.5] ([188.94.27.5:46926] helo=scarlet.netpirates.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 6C/D4-55814-87795665 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 09:28:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 11202 invoked by uid 89); 7 Dec 2015 14:28:08 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.4.0 ppid: 11194, pid: 11197, t: 0.0383s scanners: attach: 1.4.0 clamav: 0.98.4/m:55/d:20700 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.178.24?) (php@sebastian-bergmann.de@87.189.230.37) by scarlet.netpirates.net with ESMTPA; 7 Dec 2015 14:28:08 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <11.24.55814.5A495665@pb1.pair.com> Message-ID: <5665977B.4040109@php.net> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:28:11 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.6 life cycle From: sebastian@php.net (Sebastian Bergmann) Am 07.12.2015 um 15:25 schrieb Levi Morrison: >> So, I wonder if it would not be better to wait until nearer the deadline, >> and see if we need an extension then? > > This is exactly the strategy that at least a few others in this thread > aside from myself are advocating against. Please let's just pick an > EOL date and stick to it. By planning to re-evaluate in one year that > inherently means that the community can drag the migration because > they know we are going to re-evaluate. Exactly. We need a fixed EOL date and we need it now. And before this thread started we had one: August 2017.