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

On 18 Sep 2003 at 12:44, Rob Hutton wrote: > >If we find a different way to communicate a rewrite then I don't have > >a > > >problem with not requiring a major version increase. > > > > > How about requiring a complete rewrite to downgrade to at least beta > > stability for 2 releases minimum? In addition, if the version is > > required to increment by 100 to the next available round 100-number, > > that might do it > > > > 1.1 => 1.100 > > 1.102 => 1.200 > > What about following the Linux kernel versioning where od numbers are > development releases and even are stable releases > > foo2.5.23 is the 23 development release of foo2 version 5 that will > become foo2.6 when released foo2.6.11 is the 11th patch level to the > foo2.6 stable code (bugfixes, security problems, ...). Then it is > fairly easy for developers that depend on packages to tell where the > development is, and for users to tell what is stable and what is > development.... In my eyes not a good solution. We already have the tags for "alpha", "beta" or "stable" in the package.xml and they are implemented in the installer / pearweb / several tools already. Stefan