Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] OLE-0.5 (beta) Released.

Pierre-Alain Joye <paj@pearfr.org> escribió > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:40:32 -0300 > "Xavier Noguer" <xnoguer@xavier-noguer.com> wrote: > > > Pierre-Alain Joye <paj@pearfr.org> escribió > > > > > On 14 Dec 2003 18:37:09 -0000 > > > "PEAR Announce" <pear-dev@lists.php.net> wrote: > > > > > > > The new PEAR package OLE-0.5 (beta) has been released at > > > > http://pear.php.net/. > > > > > > > > Release notes > > > > ------------- > > > > - BC break!!! OLE/OLE.php file moved to OLE.php to comply with > > > > PEAR > > > > standards. You will have to change your > > > > require('OLE/OLE.php')'s > > > > for require('OLE.php')'s > > > > > > Important notes: BC breaks should not be done between 2 beta > > > relases and obviously not between 2 stable releases with the same > > > major version number. > > > > That's why the package is still in beta state. > > huh :) "BC breaks should not be done between 2 beta relases", the > previous release was beta... I guess I should have asked before releasing... The alternative seemed to be changing the state of the package to alpha. I didn't do that because of two reasons: first, I think the state of a package reflects the maturity of the code, and in this case the BC break was not the result of a change in the code, so I would be telling users that the new release was less reliable than the previous one, which is not the case; second, there is a package which depends on OLE (maintained by me), and this package is currently in beta state too. This package shouldn't be considered more stable than OLE, so if OLE becomes alpha, it should become alpha too (unless it's development freezes for a long time), which means a lot of people asking wtf happened. If most people still think it was a bad idea to keep it as beta, I'll re-release it as alpha (after deleting the current release of course). Xavier http://www.xavier-noguer.com/