Hey Ale, Can we push this forward somehow? >
My proposal didn't receive much feedback tbh, but nobody proposed alternatives. I have one doubt: using this namespace strategy, it seems to me that a >> consumer of the spec can only require one revision at a time, is that >> correct (and desired)? >> > Nope, that's quite the opposite: having the revision in the namespace *and* in the package name means multiple revisions can be imported in the same codebase, which solves the main problem of being able to provide migration paths to BC breaks. This is actually the main point that should justify the clunkiness of the proposal. I would invite all the people in the group to provide feedback, expecially negative, so that we can asses if there is ground to start editing a new bylaw and finally get things moving. Cheers! Stefano -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAFojS1ui6M7EZH5hnTh64enmRhX-HxPd7bw5-DELTxa_7R2xaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
