Re: Simpler version naming

Alan Knowles wrote:

bugfix releases must retain the stability of the last release. Version 1.3.3 (stable) cannot be upgraded to version 1.3.4 (beta). If a major change is made, requiring a drop to beta for testing, use 1.4.0a1 (alpha), 1.4.0b1 (beta) or 1.4.0RC1 (beta) instead, and following the RC naming rules.

This was strongly debated, and eventually voted on in the existing RFC, which got rid of the 0.0.0a0 0.0.0b0 suffix requirements except for RC's, as the duplicated already existing information in the package state field. The plan was to prominantly display the status next to the version number wherever possible.

So for 1.4.0 alpha 1, I should release it as 1.4.0RC1 state alpha? That doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully I am misunderstanding what you mean?

I'm not sure how this is simpler than the current RFC? - it actually adds an extra requirement?

It consolidates the 3 disjunct sources into 1.

I still cant remember what the problem with changing the package name to XXX_YYYY-0.0.0.alpha.tgz at either pear package or pear download stage... it can still be stored without the state, but is just a matter of modifying the filename in the http headers on pear, and renaming on upload (which is what currently happens anyway)

it either introduces magic or forces the user to remember the package state in order to download the file. Greg