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 win in sum or one
> 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
> separately. We could ha
hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:16 PM
> > > To: Zeev Suraski
> > > Cc: Joe Watkins ; PHP internals
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline
> > >
> > > I agree,
> > >
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 only be 42 votes
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 up before the voting was
ilto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:16 PM
> > To: Zeev Suraski
> > Cc: Joe Watkins ; PHP internals
> >
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline
> >
> > I agree,
> >
> > no votes should be m
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 tie and us choosin
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:16 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Joe Watkins ; PHP internals
>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline
>
> I agree,
>
&g
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 50%+1 of the total to g
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 3
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 o
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:
>
>
>
> https://wiki.php.n
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
