On Nov 8, 2007 6:11 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 8, 2007, at 18:09 , Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > > Though applications backwards compatibility just doesn't make sense in > > this context. We consciously broke it with the high level design, both > > of the user experience and of the security framework. > > That's not the point. The point is how hard we make it for people to > port their apps to Sugar. And in my opinion we should not make it > unnecessarily hard.
I agree that is some cases Sugar make it *unnecessarily* hard. We fixed many of these and we will continue to improve in this respect. In some cases though it's better to break than to keep a fake compatibility with something which is designed for a different use case. That way the error is explicit and the activity author knows it needs to be fixed. And I agree with Ivan that this is the case for /tmp. Marco _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel