Re: Re: [PEPr] +1 for RFC::VersionNaming

Alan Knowles wrote:

So i''m lost right now: take an example HTML_CSS package I've attempted to publish a new version in beta stage with a new feature inside. So how should it be named following this RFC ? ( previous version was 0.3.4 ) html_css-0.4.0.tgz

That should have been ok (the hope is that we can modify the packager/installer to create filenames like HTML_CSS-0.4.0-beta.tgz) based on the 0.4.0 release name.

This could throw a wrench into the idea of creating an xml-rpc-less channel server, as the user would need to know both the version and the stability. I think adding a postfix with state is going to be a bad idea whether it is automatic or not. 1) it does not distinguish between unique releases (HTML_CSS-0.4.0-beta.tgz and HTML_CSS-0.4.0-alpha.tgz is impossible) 2) it introduces another possibility for bugs and so adds a great deal of unneeded complexity to the script logic (pear install blah would have to check for such blunders as HTML_CSS-alpha-0.4.0 or HTML_CSS-alpha0.4.0) Greg