On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: [snip]
> FWIW, I think the "new requirement" John is speaking of is for the 2.0 API > to include deprecated support for pre-2.0 APIs. > > That was my understanding as well, but I did have every intention of having that support, precisely because of the concerns over API compatibility that we've had sporadically throughout several threads... and because it's generally a good idea... and because we've made a concerted effort in the past to avoid such breaks in compatibility. > I was also under the understanding that our plan for 2.0 was to make a > clean break on APIs to make it easier to maintain strong compatibility > promises going forward. > > That was never my intention, and I think it'd be a bad idea that would really inhibit people from upgrading smoothly. > I'm not sure if this changes my positions since it draws out the timeline > of effort for those migrating to 2.0 rather than remove it.. Next time > let's have a DISCUSS thread prior to calling a vote so I have more time to > think. > > We've discussed these kinds of issues sporadically here and there. It's not like we've never discussed API compatibility guidelines, but there are things we apparently need to make a decision on. A vote helps solidify a concrete course of action. If you feel there is insufficient discussion in advance of the vote, please provide a -1 on that basis.
