Re: XML_Tree - Lets Fix this up finally

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:31:51 +0100, Pierre-Alain Joye <pierre@dotgeek.org> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:07:55 +0100 > lsmith@php.net (Lukas Smith) wrote: > > > Justin Patrin wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Not interested. I was quite happy with the original RFC .. > > The only thing I in the end agreed should have been changed was > > removing package state to the version name. > > Same here. I do not see the point here. The name of one package is > Foo, its version 1.2.3, another Foo2, its version 2.0.0, Foo2 being > a better/faster version of Foo. If that can help you to just apply > the current rules and move on, see it as a completely new package. > > And if you are still not convince, we cannot technically change this > rule. > My point was that Lukas says that the current rule says that you're not allowed to go to Package2 2.0.0. If people think this is the case we should revise it. I agree, a totally new RFC isn't what we need. The current one (IMHO) says everything fine, but I would suggest a clarification which states explicitly that Package2 *must* have all stable releases with major package version 2 and only 2. i.e. no Package2 1.0.0 and no Package2 3.0.0. Again, what I meant was to add a very small clarification of this one point, not a complete RFC rewite. -- Justin Patrin