Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::Prefix all packages with P_
| From: | Markus Wolff | Date: | Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:55:31 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::Prefix all packages with P_ | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-43634@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Pierre schrieb:
On 3 Aug 2006 13:39:31 -0000, Markus Wolff <wolff@21st.de> wrote:Actually, yes. The proposal says: "Changing the class name is considered a BC break. Packages must be updated if a BC break is allowed according to the version naming guidelines [3]." That, together with the headline "Prefix *all* packages..." can very well be interpreted as "yo folks, let's rewrite everything right now".Markus Wolff (http://pear.php.net/user/mw21st) has commented on the proposal for RFC::Prefix all packages with P_. Comment: I second Arnaud's opinion - prefix all new packages (+1 for PEAR_ btw.), leave existing packages as they are.With all respect, can you guys actually read the RFC?
It's not spreading FUD, it's clarifying some ambiguous wording in the proposal. CU MarkusThe inevitable move to PHP5 will trigger the creation of new major package versions for existing packages anyway,Many packages work very well with php5 even with E_STRICT. It would be also nice to stop to spread the FUD about the needs of rewriting all packages. There is enough people out there to spread it.