I think Jan is asking for a feature of Pkg.update() that would require explicit confirmation of an update that changes the major version number of a package.
-erik On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:49 AM, John Myles White <johnmyleswh...@gmail.com> wrote: > These are very good points, but I think many of us think that Julia is > generally too young to provide guarantees of backwards compatibility until > 1.0 lands. Many people have tried very hard to handle these things with > deprecation periods, but there are sometimes situations where that's not > possible. In those cases, getting from where we are to where we want to be > requires breaking things. > > -- John > > On Oct 3, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Jan Kybic <jky...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, September 5, 2014 11:07:05 PM UTC+2, Tim Holy wrote: >> >> I'm pleased to announce a major overhaul of the Images package. The big >> change >> is deeper integration with other packages: Color and FixedPointNumbers. >> > > Thank you very much for your work, I am sure these changes are in the good > direction. But of course, some of the changes break existing code, as I have > discovered myself today - after Pkg.update() my code no longer works. I am > sure I will find the problems and correct them but at the moment I just > wanted to make some more general comments: > > a) The seemingly innocent command 'Pkg.update()' is actually quite > dangerous. Could it not warn - "there are important changes in package XXX, > you can read about them in YYY, are you sure you want to update now?" > > b) Backward compatibility is very important. People will get angry if they > have to change their code with every new version. I know it is not always > possible but it would be nice to have the "old style" and "new style" live > together in parallel for some time, while issuing depreciation warnings, > before actually changing the default behaviour. > > Keep up the good work. Yours, > > Jan > > > -- Erik Schnetter <schnet...@cct.lsu.edu> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/
