On Jun 27, 2014, at 8:29 PM, Chris Custine <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally I think of this only in the context of source > compatibility. This particular issue is kind of a rare case I think, > but I think it would be ok to potentially return a value here where > there was none before, especially since it was really borked prior to > https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/403 (which is still open in > case anyone has time to merge it). Agreed. I think we can reasonably tackle binary backwards compatibility on a case by case basis. Hopefully it’s a relatively rare thing we have to consider. If it’s coming up often, we should consider making some sort of rule for it. Everett
