> On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:17, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com > <mailto:maxle...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:06, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com > > <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > >> On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:56, Dale Henrichs <dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com > >> <mailto:dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Damien, > >> > >> I'm using zeroconf for Pharo 1.2, 1.4 and 2.0 ... I still test Metacello > >> against Pharo1.1 ... I would use zeroconf with 1.3 but there is something > >> funkily different between what is available on zeroconf for 1.3 and what > >> actually "works" for for 1.3 > >> (https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/30567/PharoCore-1.3-13328.zip > >> <https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/30567/PharoCore-1.3-13328.zip>). > > > > why? I do not think anyone is using Pharo < 2.0 (and not even 2.0, with the > > exception of some legacy apps) > > this “forever backward compatibility” ends up being really complicated. > > I am actually, Pharo1.1.1, Pharo1.3 and Pharo1.4 (don’t judge… :) ). > > I do not judge. I pity :)) >
It is ok to use them, but people should not expect that packages and framework will be updated. (and this even defeats the purpose: people use old version *becasue they do not want change*. If we update stuff under their feet (Zinc, Metacello…) this will lead to exactly what they do not want. We should consider old version to be frozen, *including* the frameworks and tools. Marcus