Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > Backwards compatibility is definitely a must, I'd say. Regardless of > exactly how the backwards-compatible pugin is shipped, it should be what's > turned on by default.
I keep seeing this thrown around and I don't quite get why we feel this is the case. I'm not completely against trying to maintain backwards compatibility, but at the same time, we just went through changing quite a bit around in v12 with the restore command and that's the other half of this. Why are we so concerned about backwards compatibility here when there was hardly any complaint raised about breaking it in the restore case? If maintaining compatibility makes this a lot more difficult or ugly, then I'm against doing so. I don't know that to be the case, none of the proposed approaches really sound all that bad to me, but I certainly don't think we should be entirely avoiding the idea of breaking backwards compatibility here. We literally just did that and while there's been some noise about it, it's hardly risen to the level of being "something we should never, ever, even consider doing again" as seems to be implied on this thread. For those who might argue that maintaining compatibility for archive command is somehow more important than for restore command- allow me to save you the trouble and just let you know that I don't buy off on such an argument. If anything, it should be the opposite. You back up your database all the time and you're likely to see much more quickly if that stops working. Database restores, on the other hand, are nearly always done in times of great stress and when you want things to be very clear and easy to follow and for everything to 'just work'. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature