RE: [PEAR-DEV] The point (BC breakage)

Greg Beaver wrote: > There are several simple reasons why Daniel, Alexey's and Pierre's > arguments are in my opinion flawed :). > > Daniel says: > Fully agree - the whole ruleset is much too complicated to communicate to > all developers. > > Greg's answer: > Which is more complicated? [..] Yes - you are right :\ After reviewing everything better I agree that it can be communicated. There was very much talking on this issue lately and so subjectively it seemed more complex to me. However this discussion ends it has to be communicated. ATM there is no propper documentation about versioning schemes in PEAR IMHO. But I somehow dislike the _v2 directory thing. It doesn't look clean to me. That may be a very subjective point of view. On the other hand after reading the latest discussion I am tending to think that your proposal is the easiest way to go to allow concurrent packages. (((I would still prefer a more radical change which abstracts the package directory from the userland))) BUT! I don't want this discussion to run in circles and as I really see a need for a solution to this problem (even if others not see any problem) I am +1 on your proposal (even if nobody else cares :) ) Just my 2 cents Daniel Khan