Re: RE: XML_Tree2 vs XML_Tree 2.0.0

On 30 May 2004 at 18:10, Mika Tuupola wrote: > 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 ;). Agreed and apologized. I didn't comment specificly on the bug you refered to but more on the subject (forking new packages or not) as a whole. So were were talking from a bit different points of view. Yes, I know your concern about problems like this is valid. And I'm also sure qa will have a hard time judging from case to case - but you can't answer those questions once for all unfortunately. So please accept my apology. Stefan