Re: Criticism of "version numbering"-document

Hi to all, Mathias sums up the problem quite nicely: - PHP lacks namespace support. - creating a BC-breaking release in the same namespace means that older packages that depend on the package will break without warning. - The only way to allow BC-breaking releases to co-exist with existing packages is to rename all of the elements in the package, hence the new package name/class names. No amount of documentation or website warnings can prevent BC breaks from affecting situations where a package is used in a short term freelance project, for instance, and an upgrade a year and a half later breaks everything. I recently was forced to do some goodwill free work due to a BC break in a PEAR package that was extremely well documented. I don't like working for free, even though the documentation made fixing the bug quite easy. It took me a few hours just to figure out where the bug was coming from. All the other questions about numbers and so on are just minor cosmetic details. Like the coding standards, I suggest we just adhere to the document, it's no hassle, and like the coding standards, it can be adjusted to quite easily with no technical problems. Greg Matthias Nothhaft wrote:

could someone summarize what the real problem is? ;-) And just another thought for example MDB / MDB2: MDB2 breaks BC from MDB. And for the reason that one can use it at the same time it was renamed to MDB2 and is now an independant package, isn't it!? Hello, everybody! ;-) Just to make it clear: In my opinion it _is_ simply a new package! And I guess the installer makes no difference between them, too!? So why not apply the 'normal versioning' to it and start with MDB2 version 0.1.0 and the first stable release is simply 1.0.0 ??? No more problems with "how to mark it as alpha/beta???" ! I think everybody can understand that MDB2 is probably better/newer than MDB! But I can't understand why you don't start versioning just like any other package? Is the 2 in MDB2 not enough for you? Or in another package maybe a MDBv2 ? Besides I don't think that 'odd/even versioning' is a good one, becaus it will only confuse people and rise more flames... And a missing 1.y.z in the versioning of a package is also confusing! Regards, Matthias