Re: RE: XML_Tree2 vs XML_Tree 2.0.0

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 04:44:08PM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > So you advocate for having just one "branch" and not really forking > off separate packages / classes? Well, this topic has been > extensively discussed before - and we're through with it, sorry! Actually that's what I would like to see. > To explain the ideas behind it: This is the only way to ensure that > several scripts using different major versions can actually coexist - > on the same server, and included at the same time (if needed). Be honest - is such a situation really common? If it was, other repositories (say CPAN, a lot bigger than PEAR/PECL) would also have such a versioning policy. > This is the only way that you can still run your old app next year > without braking everything although your ISP upgrades to a new major > version to support the addition features. Then you can store these classes localy (somewhere in your home directory) and have your own, rock-solid, composition of PEAR packages. > Please don't just think about one special app, or the case that you > have the total freedom on your server and know for sure what will > break after an update. There are often environments where life is not > that easy (e.g. hosting). And does that mean that there has to be a mess in PEAR? I just can't get rid of that nightmare where there will be a dozen or so forks of Foo package. Ok, I know that actually this case is closed, as PEAR group has published a document about versioning policy some time ago. Maybe we should end this thread, not to start another flame war. -- http://www.mysza.eu.org/ | Everybody needs someone sure, someone true, PLD Linux developer | Everybody needs some solid rock, I know I do.