Re: RFC Version Naming

----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Neufeind" <stefan@neufeind.net> To: "Alan Knowles" <alan@akbkhome.com>; "Lukas Smith" <smith@backendmedia.com> Cc: <pear-dev@lists.php.net> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] 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. No comments on comments, Stefan ;-) but still, a +1 from me, as well. Klaus