Re: reminder: package.xml 2.0 question

Greg Beaver wrote:

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

+1 for #2 Package XML files should be strictly ordered for readability. As I said before, we enforce very strict style rules in other parts of PEAR why should the package files be any different. There is no functional value in having elements ordered arbitrarily, so replacing sequence with all will just be cosmetic. A cosmetic change like this is along the lines of a super-model having plastic surgery so that she looks more like her grandmother. It just doesn't make sense. Adding yet another package format is just silly. How many people here (besides Greg) would volunteer to implement PEAR_PackageFileManager2And2.1? Adding another format will create a maintainability nightmare that will set a bad precedent for future packages. Scott Mattocks