Re: 2.0.0 (Re: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR 1.9.5 testing)

Hello Alexey, > > was wondering what you thought about going 2.0.0-alpha1 and > > dropping PHP4 support once and for all. > We already have PEAR2, it is called Pyrus and it is stuck in alpha > for 5 years. > > Starting another complete rewrite with the amount of workforce we > have is madness. We don't want to rewrite it. > Yep. This does not require going 2.0.0, though. If I understand the BC rules[2] correctly, we may only break BC when the major version is incremented: > Deliberatly Breaking BC on packages > Breaking BC may only be done: > [...] moving from Major Package Versions Dropping support for PHP4 is a BC break - which is why many PHP5 rewrites of the packages got a 2 in their package name. Theoretically we are forced to rename the package to PEAR2, but I'm totally against that - PHP4 is EOL'd since ages, and only a handful servers world wide are running it. This is why I propose to increase the version number to 2, but keep the package name (and thus the class name). I'd use the 2.x.y as indicator that PHP4 support has been dropped. [1] http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20031114-bbr.php [2] http://pear.php.net/manual/en/rfc.version-naming.standard.php -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=-

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc