Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Peter Cowburn
On 13 January 2016 at 13:16, Bob Weinand wrote: > I agree, > > no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support". > Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the most > restrictive schedule as a result. > (Interpreting it like "you need

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Zeev Suraski
> -Original Message- > From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:16 PM > To: Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> > Cc: Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org>; PHP internals > <internals@lists.php.net> > Subject: Re:

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Bob Weinand
I agree, no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support". Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the most restrictive schedule as a result. (Interpreting it like "you need 50%+1 of the total to get it extended so far".) Hence Security Support until Dec

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Joe Watkins
and [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:16 PM > > To: Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> > > Cc: Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org>; PHP internals > > <internals@lists.php.net> > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Ferenc Kovacs
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Joe Watkins wrote: > > The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented > ahead of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and > very clearly so: > > So what !? > so this should have been brought

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Levi Morrison
Oops; missed reply-to-all: On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: >> Not that I particularly care about this outcome, but there were only >> "42" Yes votes, and "2" No votes. As the voting says for the second part >> "ONLY IF YOU CHOSE 'YES' ABOVE: ", there should

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Derick Rethans
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote: > From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com] > > > > no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support". > > Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the most > > restrictive schedule as a result. > > (Interpreting

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Ferenc Kovacs
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com] > > > > > > no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support". > > > Counting it that way would make it up for a

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Pierre Joye
> From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:16 PM > > > To: Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> > > > Cc: Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org>; PHP internals > > > <internals@lists.php.net> > > &g

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Rouven Weßling
> On 13 Jan 2016, at 16:23, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > I don't think we can avoid some confusion, we could have had a three way > vote here (keep the current, expand #1, expand #2) but then people would > argue that the tho expand options should win in sum or one of those >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-13 Thread Larry Garfield
On 1/13/16 11:26 AM, Rouven Weßling wrote: On 13 Jan 2016, at 16:23, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: I don't think we can avoid some confusion, we could have had a three way vote here (keep the current, expand #1, expand #2) but then people would argue that the tho expand options should

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-12 Thread Pascal MARTIN, AFUP
Le 05/01/2016 10:51, Zeev Suraski a écrit : the vote is now open for the PHP 5 Support Timeline RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php56timeline#vote Hi, We've discussed this at length at AFUP, and would be +1 to extend the lifetime of PHP 5, by a huge margin. As for the duration, we would be

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-05 Thread Zeev Suraski
Hopefully mostly everyone is back from the holidays by now, the vote is now open for the PHP 5 Support Timeline RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php56timeline#vote Voting ends January 13th 2016 at 10:00am GMT. Thanks! Zeev

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

2016-01-05 Thread Derick Rethans
Hi, just bumping this so that there is less chance this gets lost in the CoC thread :-) cheers, Derick On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote: > Hopefully mostly everyone is back from the holidays by now, the vote is now > open for the PHP 5 Support Timeline RFC: > > > >