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

> From: Jan Schneider [mailto:jan@horde.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 2:46 PM > Zitat von Marshall Roch <pear-dev@exclupen.com>: > > > Jan Schneider wrote: > > >>I really think major version increase probably should ONLY be for BC > > >>breakage, otherwise it's just a huge mess that cannot be automated. > > > > > > Why? If the developer feels like he wants to make a clear cut with his > > > rewrite, let him so. It wouldn't break anything. The proposed changes > > want > > > to make sure that no BC breaks happen within one package lifetime. > That > > > doesn't mean that you are not allowed to end a package's lifetime if > > you > > > don't break BC. > > > > Releasing Foo2 *would* break BC with Foo, no matter what, since PEAR > > naming conventions would require Foo_Example_Class to become > > Foo2_Example_Class. > > > > So if package Foo2 is bc with Foo, and package Bar has 10 files > > (drivers?) specifically using Foo, then the Bar maintainer has to update > > all of those files to specifically call Foo2 instead? Seems like a > > pain... > > I don't think this is a pain. Search & Replace of (put your favourite > editor > here) is your friend. > And the best thing is: He simply doesn't have to change it, because Foo > will > still work. Currently I am also leaning in this direction. Regards, Lukas