Kevin Pilch-Bisson <kevin@pilch-bisson.net> writes:
> 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.
+1 as well. Let's keep building a consensus here! :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 12 18:56:11 2003