Re: XML_Tree - Lets Fix this up finally
| From: | Justin Patrin | Date: | Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:03:43 +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-2459@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:31:03 +0100, Lukas Smith <lsmith@php.net> wrote:
> Justin Patrin wrote:
>
> >>>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.
>
> Well the RFC is not consistent there. But since it states that you start
> at 0.0.1 and then process to 1.0.0 for the first stable release it
> implies that you can never actually get to 2.x.x or higher, since the
> major version number is supposed to mark a BC breaking release.
>
I don't see that. It has some implied stuff in it, though. The
My_Package example says to use 1.0.0 but the My_Package2 one says
2.0.0. This implies that major revisions over 1 must have their first
stable release at the # of the package. If you think this isn't clear
or isn't what the RFC says perhaps we should draft another one to
clarify this.
--
Justin Patrin