On 15/11/12 11:48, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 14.11.2012 12:36, Gary Martin wrote:
On 14/11/12 08:38, Olemis Lang wrote:
fwiw ... I'm -1 about adding it soon ... maybe later
At the moment I am of the opinion that it is something we need to sort
out relatively quickly so that fewer people feel any pain of a transition.
I'll presume to barge in with the opinion that this is not something you
can add "maybe later" in a backward-compatible way, unless you plan to
renumber all tickets in existing databases ... which would certainly get
Bloodhound mentioned on /. but not in a nice way. :)
-- Brane
Absolutely. For backwards compatibility we could maintain any gaps in
the numbering but I don't think that is particularly satisfying
solution. There appear to be a number of good reasons to allow for
continuous numbering within a product once you take potential imports
into account. Has anyone got any compelling arguments for why we should
not take this approach?
Cheers,
Gary
