/ "Johnson, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | Norman's proposal sounds good to me. More than a year is a long time to | wait for making changes that break backward compatibility. | | I think you could do away with the second rule altogether or make it | less stringent: | | - The change was announced as part of the planning for the major | release. | | Assuming that a major release takes a few months to plan and implement, | you'd still give people a pretty big window to plan for the change.
Since we're talking about a matter of policy, I want there to name a
precise location where the change will be announced. The release notes
for the current release seem like a good place.
| That also relieves the burden of needing to put out a release simply to
| announce a backwardly incompatible change. As written, if there is no
| need to release an update prior to a major release, you'd be stuck
| making a point release just to make the announcement.
That's a good point.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Throughout history the world has
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | been laid waste to ensure the
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | triumph of conceptions that are
| now as dead as the men that died
| for them.--Henry De Montherlant
pgpAhABeDxehO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
