Re: [RFC] BC breakage in PEAR - how to handle it properly

Hi Tomas Tomas V.V.Cox wrote:

On Thursday, September 18, 2003 2:26, Greg Beaver wrote:

This is why I think complete rewrites with no BC break should not be major version increases - but Lukas and Pierre feel differently. I would propose that complete rewrites should be a minor version increase of at least 10, so that 1.2 becomes 1.12. In this way, we can have Foo 1.x and Foo2 2.x

I really think major version increase probably should ONLY be for BC breakage, otherwise it's just a huge mess that cannot be automated.

Acceptable?

There is no need to requiere that. Foo can be 0.9, 1.0, 1.3, 2.4 (what we are doing nowadays), this new stuff will introduce a new "package" version, Foo2 that can be Foo2-0.9, Foo2-1.0, Foo2-2.3. If you'd never need major rewrite, there is no need to follow the proposed convention.

Fair enough. What about ambiguity between Foo version 2.0 and Foo2 version 1.0 (or version 2.0?)? This seems a bit confusing, as Marshall pointed out. I feel somewhat odd arguing against my own writings, but such is life :). Regards, Greg