For Programmers: Free Programming Magazines  


Home > Archive > PHP PEAR Questions and Answers > January 2007 > Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] XML_RPC2-1.0.0 (stable) Released.









You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

 

Author Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] XML_RPC2-1.0.0 (stable) Released.
Lukas Kahwe Smith

2007-01-15, 7:00 pm

Mark Wiesemann wrote:
> Hi Sérgio and QA list,
>
> PEAR Announce wrote:
>
> This should be version 2.0.0, shouldn't it?


well ..

we have conflicting standards that were never merged unforunately ..

regards,
Lukas
Mark Wiesemann

2007-01-15, 7:00 pm

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Mark Wiesemann wrote:
>
> well ..
>
> we have conflicting standards that were never merged unforunately ..


I only know this document (which indicates that 2.0.0 is correct):
http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20040226-vn.php

Regards,
Mark

--
http://www.markwiesemann.eu
Lukas Kahwe Smith

2007-01-15, 7:00 pm

Mark Wiesemann wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> I only know this document (which indicates that 2.0.0 is correct):
> http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20040226-vn.php


there is also an RFC passed via PEPr that changes some of the items in
that document.

regards,
Lukas
Mark Wiesemann

2007-01-15, 7:00 pm

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Mark Wiesemann wrote:
>
> there is also an RFC passed via PEPr that changes some of the items in
> that document.


Are you talking about
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=65 ?

After a quick view on it, I would say that this also requires 2.0.0:
> My_Package2 (the next major version - see major package naming document
> for this)
> 0.1.0....0.1335.0 initial pre-stable releases
> (bug fix releases increment .z eg. 0.12.1)
> 2.0.0 first stable release
> 2.1.0 (first feature upgrade)
> 2.1.1 (bug fixes on feature upgrade)


Regards,
Mark

--
http://www.markwiesemann.eu
Lukas Kahwe Smith

2007-01-15, 7:00 pm

Mark Wiesemann wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> Are you talking about
> http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=65 ?


yes .. thats the one.
as you can see it was accepted ..

however no project currently follows things properly. without merging
these two documents and people reminding folks on pear-dev .. it will
not change either ..

regards,
Lukas
Mark Wiesemann

2007-01-15, 7:00 pm

Return-Path: <wiesemann@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact pear-qa-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list pear-qa@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 87648 invoked by uid 1010); 15 Jan 2007 15:10:04 -0000
Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-pear-qa@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-pear-qa@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 87633 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2007 15:10:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 15 Jan 2007 15:10:04 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=wiesemann@php.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=wiesemann@php.net; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net from 216.86.168.178 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: wiesemann@php.net
X-Host-Fingerprint: 216.86.168.178 mxout-03.mxes.net FreeBSD 4.6-4.9
Received: from [216.86.168.178] ([216.86.168.178:2576] helo=mxout-03.mxes.net)
by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
id 0D/A4-37077-C499BA54 for <pear-qa@lists.php.net>; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:10:04 -0500
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (unknown [212.117.93.66])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0E951949;
Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:10:00 -0500 (EST)
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>
CC: pear-qa@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <45AB8C09.8000207@pooteeweet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Xref: mail.webservertalk.com php.pear.qa:316

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Mark Wiesemann wrote:
>
> yes .. thats the one.
> as you can see it was accepted ..


Right, it was accepted.

I see no contradiction between the two documents about having to use
2.0.0 for the first stable release of a ...2 package.

Regards,
Mark

--
http://www.markwiesemann.eu
Lukas Kahwe Smith

2007-01-15, 7:00 pm

Mark Wiesemann wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> Right, it was accepted.
>
> I see no contradiction between the two documents about having to use
> 2.0.0 for the first stable release of a ...2 package.


You are right .. I was going by memory and thought the RFC removed the
need to do 2.0.0 for a new major release. However all it changed was how
to name versions prior to the first stable release of the new major version.

regards,
Lukas
Sponsored Links







Also available: Server administration forum archive | Web Design forum archive | Software forum archive | Hardware reviews archive

Copyright 2008 codecomments.com