Re: XML_Tree - Lets Fix this up finally

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:53:35 -0500, Davey <davey@php.net> wrote: > QAers, > > I am the lead for XML_Tree, and I feel very much at a road block with > this package. > > Let me state what has happened to date: > > 1) a 2.0.0 version of the package (*not* stable) was released > 2) I broke BC in said 2.0.0 version and released an RC > 3) People wanted me to change it back and create a new XML_Tree2 with > said BC Break > > Now, I was well within the standards to break BC when I did. To unbreak > it now will be outside of those standards. > > Also, to create an XML_Tree2 which will have a version of 2.0.0 will be > confusing to those using XML_Tree 2.0.0 > > See the problem? > > I don't know what to do. Release XML_Tree 2.0.0 without the BC break > then XML_Tree3 with it? > > XML_Tree's current implementation (i.e. what I broke the BC for) is more > true to the XML spec than its predecessor was, and so it seemed the > right thing to do. > > I think that the best solution is to release a 2.0.0 stable and fuck > those who were relying on the bad implementation... but thats mean. > > Please provide your input... I want to be able to close the bugs on this > once and for all and put out a stable version regardless of BC breakage > or not, I want this package to be stable and stay that way :) > XML_Tree 2.0.0 does not confirm to the naming standards. For a new major version the package should be renamed to XML_Tree2. Release a BC breaking XML_Tree 2.0.0 would break many peoples' packages as "pear upgrade" would upgrade it to the new BC breaking version. I would suggest pulling the XML_Tree 2.0.0 RC(s) and release a new XML_Tree2 2.0.0. -- Justin Patrin