Re: [RFC] Versioning rules for PHP/Zend/PEAR/Extensions

At 10:57 PM 9/24/2001 +0000, jimw@apache.org wrote:

Stig Sæther Bakken <ssb@alltheweb.com> wrote: Huh? Does strnatcmp() know the that 2.0RC4 is newer than 2.0b2? :-) probably not. i've always thought that the change needed to make php's version numbers make more sense is relatively small -- stop ignoring the middle digit, and use it to signify releases. so instead of 4.0.7RC1, you'd get 4.1.0 (on BRANCH_4_1 or whatever). if bugs were found, 4.1.1 would get released. when one of those releases is deemed stable (what would be just 4.0.7 in our current scheme), make it available for download on the download page. (meanwhile, head development is on 4.2.0-dev.) this also avoids the '4.0.6pl1' nonsense we've had to do before, too. just release a new version in that 4.x branch.

I disagree on both of these. I think it's very good that RC's are marked with RC? because it makes sure the person downloading it knows it's an RC. I don't except everyone to read the version numbering scheme. Also pl's are also a good think IMO because it makes sure those ISP's and other people who don't upgrade every single version know that this release is literally the same as the version it patches and just fixes a major bug. Andi

(and the number of cases where people should need to check version numbers for functionality should be vanishingly small. that's why we have things like function_exists().) i think tying the numbers to some definition of feature additions and bug fixes only provides fodder for rules lawyers. i believe the versioning scheme should be firmly rooted in the development process that actually exists, not some ideal of what it should be. jim -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-dev-unsubscribe@lists.php.net For additional commands, e-mail: php-dev-help@lists.php.net To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin@lists.php.net