On 2013-02-25 17:20, Don wrote:
I don't think this is true at all.
With respect -- I think Walter has absolutely no clue about backwards
compatibility and deprecation.
Here's how it should work:
1. You make promises (about future compatibility).
2. You keep those promises.
Walter tries to do (2). without doing (1). The result is the insanity
we've had for years. It means an unpredictable, unplanned set of often
undesirable behaviour is preserved, that doesn't help stability anyway.
We need to do (1).
Can we please stop pretending this is acceptable?
It's not "growing pains" or anything like that. It's a basic
misunderstanding of stability.
I completely agree.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
