Re: Compatibility, and Frustration.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:44:14PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> > From: sussman@collab.net [mailto:sussman@collab.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:38 PM
>
> > So let's come up with a written policy and stick to it. Then, when we
> > *do* break compatibility, and someone complains, we can point to the
> > writing. :-)
>
> My vote on the "courtesy upgrade time": 1 release. IOW, keep it backward
> compatible in the release the feature is introduced and drop the backward
> compat in the release that follows. I'm thinking minor releases here, not
> patch releases (and only for as long as major == 0, but we all agree on
> that).
>
> Sander

+1 on this. 0.19.x should be compatible with 0.20.x, but doesn't have to be
compatible with 0.21.x, and vice-versa.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson                    http://www.pilch-bisson.net
     "Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
     has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~