Ori Livneh <o...@wikimedia.org> writes: > The model I do think we should consider is Python 3. Python 3 did not > jettison the Python 2 codebase. The intent behind the major version change > was to open up a parallel development track in which it was permissible to > break backward-compatibility in the name of making a substantial > contribution to the coherence, elegance and utility of the language.
I like the idea, but this makes it sound like we have some commitment in the current co-debase to backwards compatibility. Currently, though, just as Robla points out that there is no clear vision for the future, there is no clear mandate to support interfaces, or what we usually call "backwards compatibility". So, yes, let's have a parallel MW 2.0 development track that will allow developers to try out new things. But let that be accompanied with a MW 1.0 track so that makes stability a priority. Now, the question is: what will Wikipedia run: MW 2.0 or MW 1.0? And, if they focus on MW 2.0 (My sense is that is where the WMF devs will want to be), then how do those of us with more conservative clients keep MW 1.0 viable? Mark. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
