Re: RE: XML_Tree2 vs XML_Tree 2.0.0
| From: | Lukas Smith | Date: | Sun, 30 May 2004 22:58:46 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: RE: XML_Tree2 vs XML_Tree 2.0.0 | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.qa |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-qa+get-1314@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Mika Tuupola wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Stefan Neufeind wrote:Then make the new behaviour optional. Problem solved. The point is that changes in a package should never ever break existing scripts for any feature published as part of the public API. Some cases can get unclear in regards to bug fixes breaking old behaviour but beyhond that the rule is simple, effective and the best we can do with what PHP offers. regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07You intend to BC-break a stable package twice a year? Well, then itDid 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.