> Or
> a) am I missing something
> b) is it the core developers' opinion that core classes have
> the right of way?
If things behave like that at least there should be a list of "reserved
class names" just like with other keywords. And of course that list must
not be changed as it is considered
> > obviously one problem is that PEAR does ignore coding standards.
> > Classes should be prefixed in both pear and core. And
> neither Date nor
> > File is in any way prefixed.
>
> Err, how are we supposed to prefix PEAR::Date?
>
> PEAR_Date?
> Date_Date?
> Lala_Date?
The whole thing is
I have to back Sebastian with what he said. Obviously the release methodology
currently applied does NOT work, neither for the project nor the community
around it.
Do it how ever you like - discuss whether it's legal to add new features on
HEAD only or on release branches like Jani said.
BUT:
Matthias Pigulla wrote:
> I have to back Sebastian with what he said. Obviously the release methodology
> currently applied does NOT work, neither for the project nor the community
> around it.
It has worked for many years, just because of one problem you don't
scrap the process.
> BUT: Once yo
Ilia,
I do not agree with this. Since there should be only bugfixes in RC
I should only test to see if the known problems are gone and there are
no regressions. Check if the NEW classe/function clashes with mine's
or PEAR's not!
> > You cannot expect folks to re-test everything with every ne
mbneto wrote:
> Ilia,
>
> I do not agree with this. Since there should be only bugfixes in RC
> I should only test to see if the known problems are gone and there are
> no regressions. Check if the NEW classe/function clashes with mine's
> or PEAR's not!
Some bug fixes may cause regressions in
