reminder: package.xml 2.0 question

Hi, I posted a question regarding the change to package.xml 2.0. Does everyone feel it is a functional and not a cosmetic change to break BC by wrapping maintainers in the <maintainers> tag? Remember: 1) we will draw serious wrath and ire from non-PEAR PECL developers if we break BC on this unless there is a very good reason. 2) it will invalidate all existing channel's releases including PEAR packages that use package.xml 2.0, all will have to be dropped and re-released with the new format. In addition, I may not have the time to perform such a drastic choreographed change until August due to constraints on internet time while travelling. On the bright side, that should certainly be enough time to warn everyone before making the change. I think releasing package.xml 2.1 with this change might be another solution that would simply involve lots of work in the installer, but would not force people to change their package.xml. In fact, package.xml 2.0 could continue to be used with no penalty ad infinitum. As a reminder, the main question is whether to remove the tag ordering requirement, which forces the use of an <all> rather than a <sequence> in the XML schema for package.xml 2.0. This forces wrapping tags that can have multiple occurrences in another tag, like the maintainer tags. To help the PEAR package developers make an informed decision on the matter, please vote as follows in the old-fashioned +1 manner for one of the following (or suggest another solution): ---- #1: breaking BC in package.xml 2.0 ---- #2: not breaking BC at all, keep things the way they are. ---- #3: keeping BC in package.xml 2.0, and adding package.xml 2.1 to the spec Thank you, Greg