Re: Package status

Lorenzo Alberton wrote:

I'm about to release a new (minor) version of [M]DB_QueryTool; both packages have been labeled as "stable" for several months, even if they're below 1.0.0 (because there was no guideline back then). Should I keep the "stable" label for the next releases, or should I mark them as "beta", as the latest directives may suggest?

Generally we "grandfathered" older packages from the regulation. So they dont need to move to the new scheme immediatly. However they should try to move to it as fast as feasible. So in your case you should move to a version number 1.0.0 or higher with the next stable release.

Similar topic, different package: Translation2. It has the "2" suffix in the name since it's a complete rewrite, but what should the package number be? I started with 0.x, then I used 2.x since it was decided so in the last naming guidelines (now "freezed"), but I'm don't completely understand why I should start from 2.x since it's a completely different package from Translation 1.x. Other two examples in pear are: I18Nv2 => 0.x MDB2 => 2.x which don't help clarifying this topic :-)

the current regulation states you should use the major version number in the release version eventhough its a new package. So MDB2 is correct. However Alan's alternative RFC proposes to remove this and instead start with totally new version numbers which would mean that once that is passed I18Nv2 is correct. Anyways for now follow MDB2's example. Once/If Alan's RFC passes we will obviously have to grandfather all previous releases from the regulation. regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07