Re: XML_Tree release 2.0.x -> XML_Tree2 release 2.0.x

> > > Shouldn't 2.0.x releases of the XML_Tree package really be packaged as > > > XML_Tree2? There are backwards compatibility issues. For instance, the > > > changelog says: > > If the new rules are mandarory, then yes. > They are. So: Yes! > Beta 1 or 2.0 dates back to November 2003, when the regulation was > not yet in place. But I expect that 2.0.0RC2 will maybe be the last > beta? Imho we should at least make the stable be XML_Tree2. I wonder > if we should do anything about the old releases of 2.x? If you release the XML_Tree 2.0.0 stable as XML_Tree2, then you should also remove the 2.0.x releases from the current XML_Tree. Otherwise, there'd be no use in making an XML_Tree2, since it'd be only marginally differetn from the latest XML_Tree. As such, either remove all 2.x releases from XML_Tree and merge'm into an XML_Tree2, or simply permit the XML_Tree 2.0.0 in XML_Tree itself, and have the package there as a grandfathered one that was established before the newer rules. Cipri