Re: unified versioning RFC (attempt 2)

Daniel Convissor wrote:

Hi Folks: On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 01:26:45AM -0500, Greg Beaver wrote:

Perhaps you and Alan could work this out?

What needs to be worked out? We already have a system: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=65 The questions raised in the "[PEAR-QA] XML_Tree - Lets Fix this up finally" thread are already completely covered by the existing convention.

Ha - in case you hadn't noticed, every single person who has posted in this thread has a different understanding of what the existing convention is. Read all the messages. Alan says that the way things are/should be done is 1.2.0 [alpha] 1.2.1 [beta] 1.2.2 [stable] You said that was "wretched". Arnaud and Pierre both think Foo2 2.0.0 doesn't make sense and that it should be Foo2 1.0.0. Justin says the current RFC doesn't allow Foo2 2.0.0, but Lukas says it does. The current RFC is a big pile of well-intentioned ambiguous crap. The current RFC also doesn't define how packages can use alpha or beta states beyond 1.0.0. This is a big problem. PHPUnit, phpDocumentor, PEAR, and any other large package/application will run into this issue every single time a major feature is added. Adding features does not imply breaking backwards compatibility. If existing scripts continue to work normally, it's not a BC break. There are plenty of examples of packages using alpha and beta after the first stable release, PEAR is not a rare exception here. Greg