Re: RFC Version Naming

On 3 Apr 2004 at 11:58, Lukas Smith wrote: > Alan Knowles wrote: > > Attached is the RFC on the revised version naming standard, Open for > > comments.. > > > > also available at > > > > http://devel.akbkhome.com/svn/index.php/akpear/RFC/VersionNumbering.txt > > [...] > > The Solution > > --------------- > > To replace the existing standard with one a far simpler one, that > > formalizes pretty much the previous status quo. > > As I have said before I like this format alot better. However I dont > agree in one point and this one is very important to me. This is also > where this standard is not simpler. This is in allowing versions in the > x.y standard. The previous regulation clearly stated that it always > needs to be x.y.z. This is because x.y can lead to stupid mistakes (1.0 > < 1.0.0). This my only happen once in all of PEAR, however I really dont > understand where the effort is to add another ".0" to prevent this > mistake. Also I think that if we are going to superseed anything we need > to think more along the lines of what are we going to change from how > things were before and do we have a very good reason (good is not good > enough in this case imho). Strongly agreed from my side. That makes obvious that demanding x.y.z solved another problem. Sounds reasonable to me. Stefan