Lukas Kahwe Smith | 1 Nov 09:51 2007

Re: QF Supersession (Was: Re: [PEAR-DEV] HTML_Form superceded ?)

On 31.10.2007, at 13:52, Alexey Borzov wrote:

> Hi,
> Adam Harvey wrote:
>>> Good points. Which means to me we need to find a new label for these
>>> kinds of packages. "Succession in development". However I would  
>>> still
>>> expect the new package to be at least in beta phase (API more or  
>>> less
>>> fixed). People that really want bleeding edge are not really the
>>> targets of this kind of information. These kinds of people follow
>>> things via pear-cvs.
>>> Also for small packages, I do not expect the alpha phase to take  
>>> that
>>> long. For bigger packages (like QF2) the alpha phase will be so  
>>> long,
>>> that there will probably not be a hard halt in feature additions  
>>> when
>>> development of the new package starts.
>>> That being said it might also be a good idea to "link" packages that
>>> overlap. This way one could immediately link the old and new package
>>> when the new package is registered, but it would not rub the new
>>> package into the face of old package users until the package is  
>>> going
>>> into beta. At this point we show something like "You may also  
>>> want to
>>> have a look at the successor of this package". Also feature requests
>>> opened for the old package can easily be migrated to the new package
>>> (this is what I did when I stopped adding more features to MDB).
>> Given the number of permutations we could end up with (we've got  
>> yet another one coming next year when DB is EOLed), I can't help  
>> wondering if it'd be better to simply give maintainers the option  
>> of setting the warning text for a package to a free-form HTML string.
> Agree here, I'd put very different texts for
> and
> if I had this option.

I agree that there should be a free text option. But also having  
defined flag's will make it easier to automate certain things. Like  
add filters in the search etc.



PEAR Development Mailing List (
To unsubscribe, visit: