From two messages: On 8/26/2012 4:55 AM, EBo wrote: > I think that covers most of it, but now you have just introduced a lot > of convoluted logic. Wouldn't it be better to survey the users, collect > all the 'old style' config's people are interested in, and then offer to > help tweak the configs than to add all the convoluted logic for > backwards compatibility? I hate to say it, but sometimes it is better > to really start clean and either write an upgrade script that will > automate most of the configuration changes or to manually update the old > configs/code... Just sayin...
and On 8/26/2012 5:03 AM, EBo wrote: > I agree... Actually I made that assumption when I commented a little > while ago backwards compatibility. For the current version it*should* > remain backwards compatible unless there is an upgrade tool that fixes > stuff AND people willing to help when it doesn't work. For v3, I would > say cut it and go fishing/coding. I absolutely agree, EBo. I was making an assumption also that Michael's suggestions would first appear in LinuxCNC2 (and an upgrade tool was what I was angling for). I most emphatically don't want to see LinuxCNC3 encumbered with cruft to satisfy old notions. That leads to the kind of bloat we see in MS Windows. Regards, Kent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
