On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 20:47, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> If you took A'' and replaced it with A'' (i.e. no major version gap between
> removing APIs or compatibility), I think the APR versioning scheme matches
> this pretty closely in its spirit (if not precise meaning).
I think you misspoke here.
We do need to (eventually) think about how someone will upgrade from svn
1.x to svn 2.x in an environment that can't do flag days. Jack's
protocol discipline allows us to say "upgrade the server first, and then
the clients, and all will be well."
Jack's API discipline may be less important, if we're careful to make it
possible to have both the svn 1.x and svn 2.x libraries installed on a
machine. GNOME seems to have gotten away with a complete API break
between 1.x and 2.x.
> I'm willing to guess that commercial software might have a harder time
> supporting parallel branches, but that's a hunch. ;-) -- justin
Actually, I get the impression that commercial software has an easier
time supporting parallel branches, because you can order employees to
work on the less sexy older branch instead of focusing on the more sexy
newer branch. In some of the more awful cases such as telephone switch
software, there may be scores of branches active at any given time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 24 02:57:26 2003