Re: Re: dependencies andapplications

On 21 Aug 2003 at 17:59, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:54:04 +0200 > "Stefan Neufeind" <stefan@neufeind.net> wrote: > > > Not required. And I'm not talking about a specific package. But if > > meant when I proposed that a first clearing summary for the ideas > > mentioned, written and distributed by pear-group, might be a good > > way to go. > > You missed my point :) > > All I said was: > I'm against the idea to implement it in a 1.x release of PEAR. I'm not > against, neither in favour, as there is still tons of things to > discuss :) I didn't miss it. But from my view it might an idea to implement a compatible solution in 1.x to be able to switch smootly and drop BC in 2.0. If you say that you want to break it in 2.0 that's okay - but this might be quite a hard time when you don't have time for changing all packages / applications to the new "stiyle". And just releasing a 2.0 for having a compatible solution and releasing a 3.0 when you really want to break BC (and drop the compatibility) is not logical to me, sorry. Stefan