On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Mike <ter...@gmail.com> wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong but I read it as "If you do not like our > policy then stability, maturity, and longevity aren't your priorities". > With all due respect it is not fair.
But isn't that exactly what people in this thread are saying? The main complaint I'm reading here is that folks are frustrated with Django's backwards-compatibily policy, and that they'd be willing to break backwards-compatibility in exchange for new features. In other words, that forward motion and architectural changes are more desirable than backwards-compatibility. Or am I reading Kevin, Tom, Skylar, et al. wrong? I'm not arguing that "stability, maturity, and longevity" are "correct" priorities, only that, well, those are the ones we've chosen. I'm not saying it's "wrong" to want more rapid improvement, only that it's lower on *my* list. I think you're reading a value judgement where none's intended. We've simply chosen certain priorities; reasonable people may have different profiles. Nobody's "right" here; I'm trying to point out what philosophies are leading to our conservatism. Jacob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
