Re: [PEAR-DEV] 2.0.0 (Re: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR 1.9.5 testing)

Hello Alexey,


> > was wondering what you thought about going 2.0.0-alpha1 and
> > dropping PHP4 support once and for all.
> We already have PEAR2, it is called Pyrus and it is stuck in alpha
> for 5 years.
> 
> Starting another complete rewrite with the amount of workforce we
> have is madness.

We don't want to rewrite it.

> Yep. This does not require going 2.0.0, though.

If I understand the BC rules[2] correctly, we may only break BC when the
major version is incremented:

> Deliberatly Breaking BC on packages
> Breaking BC may only be done:
> [...] moving from Major Package Versions

Dropping support for PHP4 is a BC break - which is why many PHP5
rewrites of the packages got a 2 in their package name.

Theoretically we are forced to rename the package to PEAR2, but I'm
totally against that - PHP4 is EOL'd since ages, and only a handful
servers world wide are running it.

This is why I propose to increase the version number to 2, but keep the
package name (and thus the class name).

I'd use the 2.x.y as indicator that PHP4 support has been dropped.


[1] http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20031114-bbr.php
[2] http://pear.php.net/manual/en/rfc.version-naming.standard.php

-- 
Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Christian Weiske

-=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=-

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlPFWpUACgkQFMhaCCTq+CMZowCdGs2UKOp/vmdf4XloUMLbZbzW
yJEAmwUtmtjZZoHUAWn9BWBP75ifm03f
=ZJEa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----