Re: XML_Tree - Lets Fix this up finally

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:46:13 +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. > > 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. > Thos are techincally different packages and we're using this to hack around BC problems. However, this is IMHO very confusing, especially to newbies who see one and the other and don't know why they're that way. In addition, it makes it hard to find a package you're looking for. Someone could easily say: get Foo 2. Now which do you want? Foo 2.0.0 or Foo2? We definately should not be using the same major version # in multiple major releases of the same package. -- Justin Patrin