David W. Van Couvering wrote: > I also wanted to respond to the suggestion that compatibility be > guaranteed for a given time period, versus tying it to release levels. > > If we don't *require* that major releases be incompatible, but simply > say this is the only time you *can* do it, then I don't see what the > issue is. We can do as many major releases as we want in five years. > > If we want to also provide a guarantee that any feature will not be > broken for five years, that's OK, but I think it would be odd to break > compatibility in a minor release just because it's been five years... > > Or am I not fully understanding your proposal, Kathey?
It is not a proposal, kind of more of a typical user requirement. I need to think some more on how to that might be implemented from a product perspective. Perhaps the guarantee of client/server compatibility with the previous and next major release would be a more realistic approach. Certainly the kind of jump suggested where there is no compatibility between v10 and v11 clients and servers would be a very hard move for users. Upgrade is another area I need to understand better across major version boundaries. Anyway, all just random thoughts at this point. As I said I need to think more. I will study your proposal and all this just as soon as I can and get back. Kathey
