Re: cvs: pear /PEAR_PackageFileManager ChangeLog NEWS
| From: | Gregory Beaver | Date: | Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:02:53 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: cvs: pear /PEAR_PackageFileManager ChangeLog NEWS | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.cvs |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-cvs+get-42562@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Laurent Laville wrote:
> Gregory Beaver a écrit :
>> Laurent Laville wrote:
>>> farell Fri Oct 6 12:20:31 2006 UTC
>>>
>>> Modified files: /pear/PEAR_PackageFileManager
>>> ChangeLog NEWS Log:
>>> update changelogs related to new feature : import all previous
>>> tasks files easily
>>
>>> + - exportCompatiblePackageFile1() method is maked as deprecated,
>>> + because package xml 1.0 will not be supported with stable
>>> version 1.6.0
>>
>> Hi Laurent,
>>
>> I'm afraid this is not OK - dropping package.xml 1.0 export is a huge
>> change to the API and not really necessary.
>
> I don't see why its a huge change .
> Drop export compatible package xml 1.0 require only to remove the
> PEAR_PackageFileManager2::exportCompatiblePackageFile1() method.
>
> If maintainers still want to produce a package.xml 1.0, there are still
> PEAR_PackageFileManager 1.5.x, as i've noticed lot of them use again.
This is not an option. You can't install both 1.5.x and 1.6.x as you
know, and we should never actively encourage developers not to upgrade.
> Few of them have already migrated from 1.5.x to 1.6.x
This is because 1.5.x is stable, and 1.6.x is not.
>> We never talked about this
>> idea.
>
> And remember, when i told you about implementing full import on
> PEAR_PackageFileManager class.
> Same feature i've done now on import all tasks files from a package xml
> 2.0 with "clearcontents" set to false.
Right, but this has nothing to do with exporting a compatible
package.xml 1.0.
There is no good reason to remove this feature, please revert the
change. The only good reason is if it prevents implementing a better
way to generate a package.xml 1.0 from the version 2 PEAR_PFM2 object.
I don't see that you have replaced this functionality, only removed it.
Considering that the code to do this is about 20 lines of code, the
change just doesn't make any sense to me - perhaps I've missed something
big?
Thanks,
Greg