Re: RE: XML_Tree2 vs XML_Tree 2.0.0

On Sun, 30 May 2004, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > You intend to BC-break a stable package twice a year? Well, then it Did you happen to read the bug description? Where did I talk about bc breaking a stable package twice an year? Besides I am not maintaining XML_Tree so I have no intentions on that behalf. Bug #89 is IMO a good example where fixing a bug (XML_Tree did not follow XML standard, and fixing the bug might cause problems to those scripts relying on the broken feature) would force changing a package from Foo_Barvx to Foo_Barvx+1. Which to me seems plain stupid. Are you sure no package would never have this kind of bugs twice an year? Should this kind of bugs only be fixed once an year? The v2 rule is a great recommendation, but I still don't like it being mandatory. There are so many mandatory rules I wonder how many people in pear-dev actually know how to make a proper release anymore ;). -- Mika Tuupola http://www.appelsiini.net/~tuupola/