Re: Re: [QA-Action] Re: HTML_CSS-0.3.5 (beta) Pulled back.

On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 21:51, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > Hi Laurent Laville! > On 11/21/2004 04:45 PM you wrote: > > Tobias Schlitt wrote: > > > >> Hi Lukas Smith! > >> On 11/21/2004 04:07 PM you wrote: > >> > >> I'm moving this over to pear-qa completly, because it's more a QA > >> issue, than something in personal with Klaus ans Laurent. > >> > >>>>>> This release has been pulled back because auf a wrong version > >>>>>> name. Please review the version naming conventions [1] and > >>>>>> re-release it using a correct version name. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>> [21:44] <lsmith> _toby: you pulled that release because it wasnt > >>>>> 0.4.0 beta? > >>>>> [21:45] <lsmith> would be nice if you elaborate on the actual error > >>>>> and invite the developers in question to pear-qa for assistance in > >>>>> fixing the issue > >>>>> [21:45] <lsmith> your mail sounds a bit like back in school > >>>>> [21:45] <lsmith> "wrong, here is a book, try again" > >>>>> [21:46] <lsmith> then again claus should know .. laurent may > >>>>> however not know > >>>>> [21:46] <lsmith> and you didnt CC laurent > >> > >> > >> > >>>> Sorry, if it sounded a bit rude, that shouldn't be. Also sorry for > >>>> not CCing you, Laurent. The reason I pulled back the release was, > >>>> that the version state was not appended to the version number for > >>>> the version name as it is required by the version naming guidelines > >>>> [1]. > >> > >> > >> > >>>> I'll propose a new standard text for such mails on pear-qa soon so > >>>> that people can review it, to eleminate the stated issues in future. > >> > >> > >> > >>> well beyond that you should also increase the minor version number > >>> for feature additions .. > >> > >> > >> > >>> so it should be 0.4.0beta1 if at all > >> > >> > >> > >>> generally we have been very lax regarding the version state thing due > >>> to everybody thinking that alan's rfc is actually the way to go .. > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=65 > >> > >> > >> > >> Yeah, of course we were and of course the proposal will be the way to > >> go some times, but I think it's the way for QA to make people follow > >> the actual standards. That's why I announce some time ago: "When I see > >> a wrong version number in time, next time, I will feel free to delete > >> the specific release, to have this regulation working, finally." [1]. > >> Sorry for not being able to keep this promise until now for timing > >> reasons. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Toby > >> [1] > >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=108976231009710&w=2 > > > "When I see a wrong version number in time, next time, I will feel free > > to delete the specific release, to have this regulation working, finally." > > > > So, why don't you do the same with PEAR 1.3.3.1 > > I think the core class should give a good example too ;-) > > > > Nevermind, i'll republish the package under 0.4.0 version in few minutes. > > Agreed, as I said: I was not able to keep the promise in the past. But > now I will be. If next time PEAR 1.3.3.2 follows, I will delete that, > too. :) Ohh can't we allow it to go up to 1.3.3.7 ? :D Hehe what a pitty ;) - Helgi