Re: Release-status of dependent packages (special: with PEAR_ErrorStack)

> Hi, > > Greg recently mentioned several times that he rates PEAR_ErrorStack > still alpha-quality, until it has run through more extensive testing. > And it's also been mentioned that there should not be any stable > packages that depend on non-stable packages. So am I right that it > should be noted on pear-dev that devs must not release stable > packages that use PEAR_ErrorStack, for the moment? > How about beta-packages that rely on alpha-code? I think you are right on "devs must not release stable packages that use PEAR_ErrorStack. Beta packages are somewhat trickier imho. Beta means (supposed to anyway) it is being tested and when it has reached a stable state is released as stable. Theoritically only bugfixes will be committed and not new features. Having a version which being tested rely on an alpha state package (basically a moving target) might not be a good idea. Then again the beta cycle of a package might be long enough to allow the use of an alpha state package. I think it is up to the devs. A beta package should not be allowed to reach stable if it depends on an alpha. Package/Dependency Alpha Beta Stable Alpha X X X Beta X X X Stable X Meaning an alpha package may depend on an alpha, beta or stable package. A beta package may depend on an alpha, beta or stable package. A stable package may only depend on a stable package. When there is more than one package the required package with the lower state is the one that counts. All that is merely thinking aloud :) Arnaud.