Re: Pearweb package validator
| From: | Greg Beaver | Date: | Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:33:09 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Pearweb package validator | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.qa |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-qa+get-2396@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Lorenzo Alberton wrote:
Hi Greg, Greg Beaver wrote:If the API is going to change, I would recommend going with unstable, beta should be fine. Ultimately it won't hurt users to know that they API can change underneath their code. DISCLAIMER: I am not the QA group, this is my personal opinion. GregI think the package itself is stable, but the API may still change. Anyway, Wolfram Kriesing (being the original developer) has the last word on it, I'm just keeping his package in shape until he comes back.I'm trying to upload a tiny bugfix release of [M]DB_QueryTool. They've been marked as "stable" well before the new regulation, even if they're < 1.0.0. Should I go back to beta? Can't the package validator be a bit less strict? :)Is there a good reason it can't be version 1.0.0? If it is stable, why wait?