On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But I thought that was the whole point - get rid of Version and loosen on > the bw policy to not be so restrictive on API. We can finally move to use > interfaces, stop that API refactoring and deprecation (as one said on a blog > - "orgy"). If we adopt Mike's proposal, where does it leave us - 99% of the > development double the efforts, and that tiny percentage like flex (even > though it's a huge feature in and on itself) having easier life? > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but if that's what is proposed and meant, I > think that not changing anything will (surprisingly and confusingly !) make > our life easier ... > > So Mark, I have to agree w/ you: "If we take that route, I am vehemently > against changing our policy." +1 ! > > Shai > > I think its less than 1% (flex, etc) that should be excluded from stable, but thats my opinion. Ideally, stable would have no backwards-break section at all in CHANGES... and it seems this is a pretty significant portion of patches these days. And I don't think merging is "double effort" especially if we aren't doing risky crazy merges with hairy back compat. -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
