Christopher wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:07 PM, John Vines<[email protected]> wrote:
> -1 I do not like the idea of committing to1.7.0-1.9.9... API additions for
> the2.0 API. We have already come to the consensus that2.0 will break the
> 1.x API which provides a lot of breathing room and freedom from old
> decisions. This causes this issue to come roaring back and an even larger
> amount of scrutiny to be required for all1.7.0-1.9.9... API changes. I
> would go so far as to say an undefinable amount of scrutiny since we still
> don't have solid foundation of a2.0 API. We cannot judge API items for how
> well they belong in an API that does not exist yet.
>
>
Honestly, I don't expect us to have any major 1.x releases after1.7.x.
These guidelines would just add some minor protection, making 1.x a bit
more stable in the transition to2.0 if we ever do have such releases. I'd
hate for a user to seamlessly migrate to2.0 from1.7, but not be able to
seamlessly migrate from a1.8 to2.0, because1.8 dropped some 1.7 API.
We also didn't expect to have a 1.7 before 2.0 :)
