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

On 30 May 2004 at 17:03, Mika Tuupola wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2004, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > > > > 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. > > Err... So is it a requirement if there is BC break or not? > Major version number gets pumped up when there is a bc break. > > I really dont remember when this v2 thing came mandatory. I > remember it being discussed but not becoming mandatory rule. > Then again, there have been so many confusing "rule" discussions > so I might just have missed it. However personally I don't > even like the rule. Running different versions of a package > can be handled with proper usage of include_path. > > In the meanwhile there already are packages in PEAR which don't > follow the rule, Auth_HTTP for example. There are packages which didn't follow the rules since they existed before the rule. However, for new packages / releases this rule is mandatory as it is. For all packages which are already released for sure we can't change history - but we try our best to get the rule applied where possible. Stefan