Re: XML_Tree - Lets Fix this up finally

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:08:51 +0100, Arnaud Limbourg <arnaud@limbourg.com> wrote: > I think alan's suggestion makes sense. The package has a beta state anyway. > > General question though, following what justin said, nothing prevents > you from releasing a Package 2.0.0, if you keep BC but heavily modify > internals you may want to do that and this does not require Package2 to > exist, right ? I believe that every major number revision is supposed to be a new package. If it doesn't break BC then, logically, it *should* be ok to have it as the same package, but this could (would) cause a lot of confusion as you wouldn't nevessarily know where to go for V2 of a package. I would suggest (if it's not in the RFC already) that all major revisions must be a new package. > > Arnaud. > > Alan Knowles wrote: > > Plan C? > > > > Can you remove all the 2.* release from XML_Tree, then release a 1.2 > > (with fixes like cloneNode) > > > > I'm assuming the installer will not try and upgrade a 2.* release to a > > 1.* release???? > > > > you could the just re-release all the 2.* releases on XML_Tree2 > > > > hopefully > > a) existing XML_Tree1 users dont get affected (other than having a PHP5 > > compatible version) > > b) existing XML_Tree1 2.* users will not get automatic upgrades (as the > > rev. no is less their current one), but will have to notice that > > XML_Tree2 exists now... > > > > > > Regards > > Alan > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 21:05 -0500, Daniel Convissor wrote: > > > >>On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 08:58:18PM -0500, Davey wrote: > >> > >>>But the BC breaks have already been done! > >> > >>But were they in "beta" releases or "stable" releases? > >> -- Justin Patrin