Norman Maurer wrote:
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb:
Danny Angus wrote:
On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought this as an
important point in the 2.4 roadmap discussion.
I personally don't care of config.xml compatibility: I was just
reporting what I understood was important (and feasible) to the PMC.
Fair enough, in that case I direct my point to Noel and Vincezo ;-)
We just stressed the fact that life must be kept as much as possible
easy for users when upgrading to new release, otherwise they may stay
behind. Regarding configurations, this goal can be achieved either
keeping as much as possible backward compatibility for existing
features, either providing (safe and thoroughly tested) conversion
tools. But we have to be aware that slowly adding small configuration
incompatibilities can sum up to require complex conversion tools, that
nobody would develop and would become a bottleneck when releasing a
new version.
Open Source Communities can create better and smarter software than
Commercial Companies, but the latter normally care more of existing
"dumb" users: we should always try to reach a good compromise ;-) .
Vincenzo
Thats right but with no new features we will loose users and not get
new.. I think we just need to document what to change in config.xml. I
allready add an UPGRADING.txt to the 2.3 branch. If we add some new
feature which need things the get changed in config.xml we just should
document it in a UPGRADING.txt
The right thing to do would be to keep UPGRADING.txt up to date *as soon
as the related code change is done*, so the documentation is fresh and
rich. Doing it just before releasing would be less effective, because
things tend to be forgotten :-) .
Vincenzo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
