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.
I don't really see the value of doing that.
I mean
Foo 2.0.0
Foo2 1.0.0
is not confusing imho since they are different packages. My point is that we should avoid having rules when they don't bring much.
Arnaud.