On 4/6/16 5:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Deciding not to have a compatibility break release means that such
> things will remain forever blocked or we slowly increase the amount of
> old code we have to support all the multiple options needed, which will
> affect bug rates and support costs.
I think that's a pretty hand-wavy statement until the problems have been
documented, along with some thought and estimation of potential
compatible work-arounds.
> I don't really mind what we do, as long as we choose that direction via
> a conscious, rational choice.
Absolutely.
I'll try to start a list on the wiki this weekend, unless someone beats
me to it.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
