Re: Crypt_HMAC vs Crypt_HMAC2

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Matthew Fonda <matthewfonda@gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Daniel O'Connor <daniel.oconnor@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hey Padraic / Matthew; >> I'm guessing Crypt_HMAC is superceeded by Crypt_HMAC2; any objections to >> me marking the package as such? >> >> At the moment, Crypt_HMAC won't be installable with the new pear installer >> (http://wiki.php.net/pear/packages/migration); and it would be good to >> know if we plan on killing it off or keeping it around (because Auth depends >> on it) >> > > Hi Daniel, > > I'd say it would be okay to kill it off - I'm not familiar with > Crypt_HMAC2, but it appears to superceed it now. Also, with ext/hash enabled > by default now (which didn't even exist when Crypt_HMAC was originally > written), I don't see much point in keeping it around. > > -Matthew > Alright; how's this for a plan people: - Crypt_HMAC gets a quick package 2.0 release to keep it installable - Gets marked as unmaintained for the moment - When Crypt_HMAC2 goes stable, Crypt_HMAC gets marked as superceeded @till: For packages trying to hit 1.0.0, something like http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=585 ? Also; some kind of end-of-life process would be good: Package is getting superceeded - blog posts, email to pear-general a few months in advance