Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PSR-0 to PSR-4 change #35

Closed
ALTAMASH80 opened this issue Feb 9, 2023 · 8 comments
Closed

PSR-0 to PSR-4 change #35

ALTAMASH80 opened this issue Feb 9, 2023 · 8 comments
Assignees

Comments

@ALTAMASH80
Copy link
Contributor

Need to change the directory structure from PSR-0 to PSR-4. @visto9259, please add a task list which in your experience needs to be fulfilled. I remember you mentioning about breaking of tests. Thanks!

@MadCat34
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

I have started to work on this issue.

@ALTAMASH80 ALTAMASH80 assigned MadCat34 and unassigned ALTAMASH80 Feb 11, 2023
@visto9259
Copy link
Member

visto9259 commented Mar 23, 2023

@MadCat34 Thanks.
@matwright has merged #36 into master to resolve this issue

@matwright
Copy link
Contributor

thanks for the work @MadCat34
@visto9259 Hope you are well, sorry for the delay in working on this.
Do you think this needs a major release version update to 4.0.0 ?
Or is a 3.6 sufficient?

@visto9259
Copy link
Member

@visto9259 Hope you are well, sorry for the delay in working on this. Do you think this needs a major release version update to 4.0.0 ? Or is a 3.6 sufficient?

@matwright No worries. We are all busy with other projects.
I was wondering the same. Not sure that I would make a major release only because of PSR-4 and the switch to PSR/Container.

At the same time, going to PSR-4 changes the src directory structure. Anyone that has forked the repo, made changes and wants to sync with upstream will be in for a surprise... but I guess that if one forked it and made changes, then one has to be ready to deal with changes upstream.

I think that we should make a 3.6 version. I would just hold a little bit such that we can include resolutions for some of the other issues like #40 and #39.

Any thoughts

@visto9259
Copy link
Member

Possibly include #31 in a 3.6 version?

@matwright
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I'm leaning to a 3.6 version too. While this has backward breaking updates it isn't really cause for a major version release.
OK, will wait for some action on the other issues before a general release. The PSR PR is merged with master in any case.

@visto9259
Copy link
Member

As a somewhat related discussion, we need to start thinking of a version 4. I created issues in the LmcRbac and LmcRbacMvc to sollicit and track proposals for enhancements. I can do the same for LmcUser.

@visto9259
Copy link
Member

Closed by #36

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants