| Helgi Žormar 2005-03-07, 3:59 pm |
| On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 14:12, Richard Heyes wrote:
> Klaus Guenther wrote:
>
> Well your rules are really quite ridiculous. Adding version numbers into
> names of classes/packages is simply absurd. I'm not fudging my code to
> cater to this.
*Sigh*
And how in gods name would anyone then maintain the 1.x code if you
overwrite it in CVS or just access it in general ...
Branches were made for a purpose :-)
And with the naming thing, not going to voice my thoughts on that,
what's done is done.
This is tho common practice in regards to the version naming *points at
various big OSS projects*
>
> Here's a better plan: Pear-qa finds a new maintainer for 1.x, and I
> maintain the latest version on my own site, something made somewhat
> easier with the forthcoming channels feature.
Sure if you want to be so extreme, your choice.
- Helgi
|