Re: package.xml 2.0 dilemma

I dont really mind the fixed ordering, I was concerned that a) licence was inconviently located for changelog management. b) that the lack of a 'release' block made maintaining a changelog more work than previously. c) that without using the packagermanager application, I would have to maintain 2 package files. If the packager creates a strictly ordered file when packaging (eg. current 2.0 format along with generating a 1.0 format file for BC.) based on the user defined less strict 2.1 format.. It would solve alot of these issues... Regards Alan On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 10:00 -0400, Daniel Convissor wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:44:35PM -0400, Greg Beaver wrote: > > > Then we can have more flexible tag ordering in package.xml. > > > > The problem with this is that suddenly, older package.xml 2.0-based > > releases will become invalid. > > Pardon my delay in replying... > > Having a consistent tag ordering makes things easier to read. Allowing > random ordering will create BC issues and a lot more work on your part. > The answer is clear: leave things as they are. > > --Dan > > -- > T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y > data intensive web and database programming > http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/ > 4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409 >