Re: QF Supersession (Was: Re: [PEAR-DEV] HTML_Form superceded ?)

Hi, Adam Harvey wrote:

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).

Given the number of permutations we could end up with (we've got yet another one coming next year when DB is EOLed), I can't help wondering if it'd be better to simply give maintainers the option of setting the warning text for a package to a free-form HTML string.

Agree here, I'd put very different texts for http://pear.php.net/package/HTML_Common and http://pear.php.net/package/HTML_QuickForm if I had this option.