Re: when a non-backward compatible package upgrade is warranted and how

On Jun 9, 2004, at 3:46 AM, Joe Orton wrote:

> And I say again: it is *never* expected that a package update breaks
> anything which was supposed to be working before. There needs to be a
> very good reason to break that rule, and "oh, but this new version is
> *so* much better" is not good enough IMO.

Certainly. In this case, wasn't 1.0.3 a significant security fix?

(Leaving aside the numerous bugs that were quashed and the
general lack of interest of most on this list about hearing
about pre-1.0 problems, which were probably already fixed,
unless they are concerned with migrating data. Oops, by
mentioning all that, I guess I didn't leave it aside. ;-) )

That all said, I've no doubt the task of upgrading to a new
non-backward compatible version is incredibly tricky in the
details.

> Anyway, I think we're in danger of getting off-topic now (or at least
> off-Subject). :)

I fixed that, but replied, so the thread should be preserved. :-)

-Travis

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 9 15:28:27 2004