On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 09:36:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: > On 11/29/25 07:53, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > > packages should avoid dropping backwards compatibility > > code purely for the sake of cleanup. > > I beg to differ. Having tidy packages reduces bugs, improves general quality > and eases collaboration. > > > Code that facilitates upgrades and backwards compatibility should > > be kept around if there is no special cost to keeping it > > There is no such thing. "dead code" is always a maintenance burdern, even if > it is only that when reading/looking over it is annoying and takes more > time/distractions to wrap your head arround it.
I wanted to reply to the original message with "I explicitly want to oppose this", so I'm glad Daniel already did. I agree with all these opposition points. I also want to point out that any intent of not-not-supporting skip-upgrades will demand users support for them, and by extension cause an explosion of untested upgrade scenarios. For which we already have no good testing for the simple cases, and anything more complicated will just cause pain for everyone. Chris
