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

On 29 May 2004 at 18:07, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2004 17:58:56 +0200 > stefan@neufeind.net (Stefan Neufeind) wrote: > > > On 29 May 2004 at 18:10, Mika Tuupola wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 29 May 2004, Daniel Convissor wrote: > > > > > > > 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! > > Only for the record, you have to apply this rule only if there is BC > (allowing previous major and current version to work in the same > tree). But it is not a requirement. If there is no BC there is no reason for a new major (in most cases). You can easily add additional features in subversions. And afaik we decided that we try not to confuse people too much. So we shouldn't have: XML_Tree v1.x XML_Tree v2.x XML_Tree2 v3.0 or XML_Tree3 v3.0 with no XML_Tree2 at all imho. Stefan