Pre-upgrade Check Version Specification Debate: Difference between revisions
From Joomla! Documentation
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
Others thought, we shouldn't use either of the above, but should use: [http://getcomposer.org/doc/01-basic-usage.md#package-versions Composer] | Others thought, we shouldn't use either of the above, but should use: [http://getcomposer.org/doc/01-basic-usage.md#package-versions Composer] | ||
===Notes=== | |||
99%-100% of the code is written for the original implementation. The getcomposer approach is not written. | 99%-100% of the code is written for the original implementation. The getcomposer approach is not written. | ||
Revision as of 21:50, 6 December 2012
Summary of what's been discussed.
The original requested way that it should work is illustrated in this example:
Original
<compatibility> <version>1.5</version> <version>2.5</version> <version>3.0.1</version> <version>4</version> <compatibility>
Is interpretted as:
- Joomla 1.5: compatible
- Joomla 1.6: not compatible
- Joomla 1.7: not compatible
- Joomla 2.5: compatible
- Joomla 3.0: compatible for 3.0.1 and up in the 3.0 version
- Joomla 3.1: not compatible
- Joomla 3.2: not compatible
- Joomla 3.5: not compatible
- Joomla 4:0: compatible
- Joomla 4.1: compatible
- Joomla 4.2: compatible
- Joomla 4.5: compatible
Accidentally coded as
<compatibility> <version>1.5</version> <version>2.5</version> <version>3.0.1</version> <version>4</version> <compatibility>
Is interpretted as:
- Joomla 1.5: compatible
- Joomla 1.6: not compatible
- Joomla 1.7: not compatible
- Joomla 2.5: compatible
- Joomla 3.0: compatible only for 3.0.1
- Joomla 3.1: not compatible
- Joomla 3.2: not compatible
- Joomla 3.5: not compatible
- Joomla 4:0: compatible
- Joomla 4.1: compatible
- Joomla 4.2: compatible
- Joomla 4.5: compatible
The above was changed to the original specifications, but some people continued to argue whether "3.0.1" should mean "compatible for 3.0.1 through 3.0.x" or "only for 3.0.1".
Composer
Others thought, we shouldn't use either of the above, but should use: Composer
Notes
99%-100% of the code is written for the original implementation. The getcomposer approach is not written.