Agree, if we are doing product namespace, we should do it properly :) On 15 November 2012 16:24, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15/11/12 11:48, Branko Čibej wrote: > >> On 14.11.2012 12:36, Gary Martin wrote: >> >>> On 14/11/12 08:38, Olemis Lang wrote: >>> >>>> fwiw ... I'm -1 about adding it soon ... maybe later >>>> >>> At the moment I am of the opinion that it is something we need to sort >>> out relatively quickly so that fewer people feel any pain of a >>> transition. >>> >> I'll presume to barge in with the opinion that this is not something you >> can add "maybe later" in a backward-compatible way, unless you plan to >> renumber all tickets in existing databases ... which would certainly get >> Bloodhound mentioned on /. but not in a nice way. :) >> >> -- Brane >> >> > Absolutely. For backwards compatibility we could maintain any gaps in the > numbering but I don't think that is particularly satisfying solution. There > appear to be a number of good reasons to allow for continuous numbering > within a product once you take potential imports into account. Has anyone > got any compelling arguments for why we should not take this approach? > > Cheers, > Gary >
