Hi Achim, Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes:
> Andreas Leha writes: >> I am not as organized as Tom is. So the chances to use my up-to-date >> orgmode and successfully export any of my org documents from a year ago >> (they are almost all 'Literate Programming' documents and, thus, maybe >> more fragile?) are slim. I do not have numbers, but it seems like I'll >> need to adapt such documents all the time. > > We've discussed this before… If you want anything "reproducible", you > either need to keep it up-to-date with rolling releases and regression > tests or you need an environment that can be frozen (i.e. a VM with the > data plus the OS and applications). Anything less than that is coming > back to bite you at some inconvenient moment. > Yes, I know. That's why I am sighing a bit: Both approaches need work or are inconvenient in one way or the other. I am following the first approach, since I sort of can live with that kind of impaired reproducibility and I really want (some of) the new features constantly added to Org. I just want to say: For me, the more backwards compatible Org stays the better. That's why I vote for the alias in the initial topic of this thread. And for similar measures in other cases, where backwards compability is as 'cheap' as in this case. It will just mean a little less work for me in the end. Regards, Andreas
