RE: [PEAR-DEV] BC breakage results

> From: Greg Beaver [mailto:greg@chiaraquartet.net] > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:17 PM > > Alexey Borzov wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Greg Beaver wrote: > > > >> 1) What should be done about minor BC breakage? > > > > > > Minor BC breakage should be clearly communicated and resolved between > > package developers and clearly stated in release notes for the users. > > For the record: I don't think that we should require x.0 releases for > > each minor BC breakage. Or else some PEAR packages risk reaching 20.0 > > quite soon. > > > >> 2) How much of an API change would be necessary to do a Package2 > release? > > > > > > That should be decided by package maintainer. My point of view is that > > if this is feasible to have 2 versions of package and use them *both* at > > the same time, then go for Foo2. > > I'd also say "API change that cannot be handled by Search/Replace". > > > Documentation and automated testing will solve most of the problems. > > Of course, it is more fun to write RFCs than docs and tests. ;P > > Maybe for you ;) - I would much rather write code, docs and tests, but > if I just coded the solution I see as the best one for BC handling and > committed it with unit tests and docs, I guarantee that people would not > be happy - they would most likely scream for my head on a stake :). > > If you don't think so, check the archives for the touchiness of > committing a new feature to the core (Tomas's DTD package, for instance). > > How's this for a solution: > > Add a requirement to the coding standards page that says if any other > PEAR packages depend on your package, and you are going to make a minor > change, you must notify the maintainer of that package so that they can > do a release that is compatible with your new package's version, or one > that requires an earlier version. A two week waiting period should be > allowed for people to respond, and then if nothing is heard back, it's > their problem and not yours if the minor break kills their package. Nah, that is just adding needless regulations. Normal courtesy would suffice here. Added to that we have a don't break BC in a minor version update policy. Quite simple. Remember: regulations are a necessary evil. We should keep them to a minimum that is easy to understand and remember. Regards, Lukas