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

From: Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:45:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: [PEPr] +1 for RFC::VersionNaming
References: 1 2 3 4 5  Groups: php.pear.dev 
Request: Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-34496@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
Greg Beaver wrote:
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. I'm +1 on this last point of view. I don't see what advantages it should give.
If someone can tell me these advantages, i'll be glad to heard it. We never did it in past, and <state> in package.xml was enough to mark a release as beta, alpha or dev. Just one last question: Suppose we have to produce a Release Candidate of a package. It's mean it should be in beta stage. So, what should be the name 1. mypackage_x-y-zRC1.tgz 2. mypackage_x-y-zRCbeta1.tgz 3. mypackage_x-y-zbetaRC1.tgz 4. mypackage_x-y-zbeta1RC1.tgz Laurent

« previous php.pear.dev (#34496) next »