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

> If we release PEAR 1.10 requiring PHP5, then
> * PHP4 users will not suffer a BC break since they will be unable to
upgrade to 1.10
> * PHP5 users will not suffer a BC break since their code will continue to
run happily

Ah. I get it.

OK, then I agree about having PEAR 1.10 instead of PEAR 2.0.0. Pyrus is
after all itself more or less PEAR 2.0.0 (in fact, Pyrus assumes itself
supported if a package requires PEAR installer 2.0.0), so having PEAR1 with
a version 2.0.0 is only breaking and complicating things for Pyrus, who's
only problem is a lack of people contributing to it.



2014-07-15 19:53 GMT+03:00 Alexey Borzov <[email protected]>:

> Hi Christian,
>
>
> On 15.07.2014 20:45, Christian Weiske wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>  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.
>>
>
> These packages also have a radically different API.
>
> We won't change API, we will only up the PHP version requirement. E.g.
> upping required version from 4.3 to 4.4 is not a BC break? Even if users of
> PHP 4.3 won't be able to upgrade to a newer version of the package?
>
> Why upping the requirement from PHP 4.4 to PHP 5.2 is a BC break, then?
>
>
>  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.
>>
>
> That is against our own rules. And again, we already have (stillborn)
> PEAR2.
>
>
>  [1] http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20031114-bbr.php
>> [2] http://pear.php.net/manual/en/rfc.version-naming.standard.php
>>
>>
>
> --
> PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>