On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 06:59:38PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Can I ask a stupid question? What have we actually broken since Apache > > > 2.0 went GA? Binary compatibility? How many functions? How many of > > > those were APR and not Apache? > > > > Sure, both source and binary compatibility were broken numerous times. > > Check the PHP bug database for umpteen reports on each breakage. > > Okay, but how is that different from early releases of 1.3?
I would like to make a small point here that just because the same things are happening as happened before doesn't necessarily mean they're good things to happen (either now or then). I've heard people imply a few times now that since breaking things happened in the early releases of 1.3, it's ok to do it in 2.0 too. It seems to me this is more an argument that the process for 1.3 was probably not what it should have been, and we should try to do better in 2.x. Also, while I agree that 2.0 can be classified still as "early adopter" stage, I would like to point out that one of the biggest factors in determining exactly how much _longer_ it stays in the early-adopter stage is going to be how developmentally stable it's perceived to be by the rest of the world. Every time we break compatibility, we are likely pushing general adoption further into the future. (I'm not intending to address the aaa vote with these comments, BTW, as I'm not quite up enough on the issues to voice an opinion on that specific question. I'm just talking about general principles that I think people should keep in mind.) -alex
