Re: QF Supersession (Was: Re: [PEAR-DEV] HTML_Form superceded ?)

On 31.10.2007, at 12:15, Alexey Borzov wrote:

Hi, Adam Harvey wrote:

Now it's linking to QF which itself has a "superceded by" message :)

Side question: should we be telling people a package is superseded by an alpha package (in this case, HTML_QuickForm2, which is at a 0.2.0 stage)?

We should, for at least 2 reasons 1) People starting new development may be more interested in bleeding edge 2) We don't want feature requests for superseded packages (especially for features that may be already implemented in new version). The wording may be improved a bit, of course, since people who expect full QuickForm functionality can not yet use QuickForm2.

Good points. Which means to me we need to find a new label for these kinds of packages. "Succession in development". However I would still expect the new package to be at least in beta phase (API more or less fixed). People that really want bleeding edge are not really the targets of this kind of information. These kinds of people follow things via pear-cvs. Also for small packages, I do not expect the alpha phase to take that long. For bigger packages (like QF2) the alpha phase will be so long, that there will probably not be a hard halt in feature additions when development of the new package starts. That being said it might also be a good idea to "link" packages that overlap. This way one could immediately link the old and new package when the new package is registered, but it would not rub the new package into the face of old package users until the package is going into beta. At this point we show something like "You may also want to have a look at the successor of this package". Also feature requests opened for the old package can easily be migrated to the new package (this is what I did when I stopped adding more features to MDB). regards, Lukas