Re: XML_Tree - Lets Fix this up finally
| From: | Justin Patrin | Date: | Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:59:22 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: XML_Tree - Lets Fix this up finally | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Groups: | php.pear.qa |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-qa+get-2455@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:50:00 -0600, Paul M. Jones <pmjones@ciaweb.net> wrote:
> Justin Patrin wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> Would Foo2 2.0.0 be acceptable? It seems to cover both aspects of the
> problem. Foo is the 1.x series, Foo2 is the 2.x series, Foo3 is the 3.x
> series, and so on.
>
Yes and this is the currently accepted way of doing it. My point was
that Arnaud had in his example Foo 2.0.0 and Foo2 1.0.0 which is
confusing.
--
Justin Patrin