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

On 29 May 2004 at 18:03, Cipriano Groenendal 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! > > 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. You could move them to a XML_Tree2-page. However, you'd have to alter the packages to reflect the namechange to XML_Tree2, which would actually be a re-release - which would imho be stupid to do as soon as a first 2.x-stable is out. Solutions? Stefan