Road to Stretch: let's stop increasing major version number in critical libraries at this point

Hi, I've seen a number of package maintainer willing to upgrade to major version of packages at this point in time. Among the disruptive changes that have been done (or are planned to do): - Django 1.10: uploaded last august, after I wrote more than 30 patches, there's still issues, it seems. See

Re: Road to Stretch: let's stop increasing major version number in critical libraries at this point

On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 11:14:02AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Hi, Hi Thomas, >... > Finally, with the above examples as illustration (and please, these > aren't attacks in any way...), I guess what I'm trying to say here is: > > While disruptive changes are necessary evils so we upgrade ever

Re: Road to Stretch: let's stop increasing major version number in critical libraries at this point

On 11/05/2016 04:07 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 11:14:02AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> ... >> Finally, with the above examples as illustration (and please, these >> aren't attacks in any way...), I guess what I'm trying to say here is: >> >> While disruptive changes are nec

Re: Road to Stretch: let's stop increasing major version number in critical libraries at this point

Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes: > If only all maintainers would coordinate their transitions, too many > unfortunately don't. And those are unlikely read Thomas' plea either, so > disruptive library changes caused by uncoordinated transitions are > unfortunately still likely to happen. The point o