I agree that *very* few users use V2. Ok I do at work but it's maybe one API endpoint so whatever. We should free ourselves from the burdensome constraints of back-compat until V2 is sufficiently ready, whenever that is. So I agree with labeling it experimental and we can elaborate on that is the upgrade notes. Some APIs I think are only V2, so we can clarify that we're not saying the underlying functionality is experimental. Not only do we have to concern ourselves with inconveniencing some users, we have to face the reality of our limited dev resources, and thus not make the prospect of improvements too hard (nor on potential contributors).
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Houston Putman
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Ishan Chattopadhyaya
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Ishan Chattopadhyaya
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Alexandre Rafalovitch
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Ishan Chattopadhyaya
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Alexandre Rafalovitch
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Eric Pugh
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Jason Gerlowski
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Ishan Chattopadhyaya
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Ishan Chattopadhyaya
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" David Smiley
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Jan Høydahl
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Timothy Potter
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Eric Pugh
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Timothy Potter
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Houston Putman
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Jan Høydahl
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Jason Gerlowski
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Timothy Potter
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Jason Gerlowski
- Re: Should v2 API be "experimental" Gus Heck
