Re: Re: Need help to understand version naming

The intention of the RFC is that only RC1/RC2 would be valid sufixes, states are already catered for by the <state> tag, and are reasonably prominant now when using the installer. I think we need to remove the old document to prevent confusion. The last Section 'Actions Required', says that we should not retroactively apply the RFC, just accept that we had a different set of rules in the past. I guess a manual page is probably the best place for the final document.. (I hope the thing isnt complicated enough that we actually need a generator :) Regards Alan Lukas Smith wrote:

Laurent Laville wrote:

Recently we've voted for a RFC http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=65 what was accepted but there are still some details that are still unclear. I don't want to raise again a flame war, but i want to understand what we should do, in case of alpha and beta versions of packages. html_css-0.4.0 was refused because the beta1 suffix was missing. In same time, packages below were releases accepted like that :

name                       state

services_ebay-0.8.0alpha alpha search_mnogosearch-0.1.0 alpha

net_dnsbl-0.5.4            beta
soap-0.8.1                 beta

sometimes we found the state as suffix, sometimes not What are the common scheme, and the differences between these alpha and beta versions of these packages. I'll be very glad to understand, and i think i'm not alone !

you are not alone. the version naming currently is turning into a big confusing mess because nobody seems to have an overview what is really expected plus most people are totaly oblivous to the problem. i think the only solution is to: - unify our standards asap into a single document - develop a simple version name generator (like the one that is linked in the original version naming standard) - add a huge note to the upload release page that people should read that standard and link to the version name generator regards, Lukas