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

> From: Pierre-Alain Joye [mailto:paj@pearfr.org] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:40 AM > To: Lukas Smith > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:26:22 +0100 > "Lukas Smith" <smith@backendmedia.com> wrote: > > > > I thought BC breaks were allowed on any release before 1.0 - and > > > that all packages < 1.0 should be ASSUMED to break by users. > > > > Yes they are. > > However as you move upto beta they are discouraged. > > No they are not. IMO we should clearly separate the status from the > version. > > The status exists to define clearly how stable is the current code. The > version to define how far are we from the full featured release (or > similar things). Basically at the point where you move to beta you should be very confident about your API. However I don't see a reason why you may not have a BC break during the beta cycle for a new major version. This would be counterproductive. People shouldn't rely on beta APIs. The bigger issue I see is with those endlessly lingering beta releases. After a while people either forget about the package or they decide to use the package (maybe it doesn't have many bugs, or you simply get to know the bugs) and then the users are surprised when suddenly the code gets messed with again. Regards, Lukas