Re: XML_Tree - Lets Fix this up finally

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:06:51 +0100, Lukas Smith <lsmith@php.net> wrote: > Paul M. Jones 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. > > Well this was what I specified in the original naming group > announcement. However this was overthrown by Alan's RFC later on. > Was it...? Which RFC? The VersionNaming RFC upholds this. All pre-stable releases are <1.0.0 but the first stable release of PackageN should be N.0.0 according to the VersionNaming RFC. -- Justin Patrin