Re: Re: [RfC] XML_Beautifier

On Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 10:3641AM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > On 20 Sep 2003 at 10:32, Martin Jansen wrote: > > > On Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 10:2231AM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > > I guess apiVersion 2.0 will be our Foo2 soon, right? > > > > I did not catch up with the recent discussion on versioning/BC stuff, > > but if you guys are planning to rename a package when releasing a new > > major version, that's a bad thing and I'm strongly against that. > > Hmm, then you missed a lot of good points for this renaming also :-)) > Maybe have a look at the archives. One main reason for me renaming > the packages and classes is that this is the only way you can use two > or more packages in one app where one uses v1.x e.g. of MDB and the > other v2.x. Otherwise require_once on v1.x and another require_once > on v2.x but keeping the classnames you could run into bad collisions > ... and nothing would work anymore. My point is that I don't like to rename packages. I would prefer to use /usr/share/pear/MDB/1/... /usr/share/pear/MDB/2/... for each major version. That will also prevent us from the problems you described above and it will not make it necessary to change the infrastructure to support renaming packages. > Think it over again - and if you have a good suggestion to the > problem surely you're welcome to contribute your thoughts. Juding by the number of your contributions compared to mine, you are sounding a bit silly here. Anyways, I'm degressing ... -- - Martin Martin Jansen http://martinjansen.com/