On Wed, 16 May 2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>Sure, but a version number if quite arbitrary and the way we have always
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly..
>done this is to consider the second digit for large changes. The fact
>that we haven't had a .1 yet is not really relevant. I don't see why you
>are making such a big deal out of a version number.
..why can't this 'way we have always' be changed to something else..? :)
I'm making this a 'big deal' because it really is time to make some
changes in 'the way we have always done things' as it seems to only
prevent us from doing anything else..
What I meant with this version number thingie is that as e.g. Zeev doesn't
like breaking the 'backwards compatibility' (referred to as BC from now on)
we have to find a way to do it 'nicely'.
Why not have some kind of roadmap for these. ie. say in that in which
versions (minor number) will some function,extension, etc. not exist, or
in which version something isn't BC anymore.
And like Sean suggested, we could create some tools which either
fix or at least inform that the script is not gonna work with 4.x.x
version.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] is just for administrative purposes. Licensing issues and
Ok. I had totally wrong idea of it then. Sorry.
--Jani
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
