> Owners of a code base are entitled to decide exactly how to update an
> API. It's their code, after all.
>
> However, search engine results are packed with too many real-world
> examples of, and rationales for, maintaining backward compatibility at
> the API level to justify arguing about it here.

It's not matter of who has rights to modify the code, that's obvious.
The point is you argue that breaking compatibility in ktuo was a
mistake and I argue that it wasn't. Looking backwards, and without any
further information from your side, I still would've done it.

Of course, your code broke and you were upset. That means something
went wrong. In my view, what went wrong was that I believe you didn't
need to upgrade ktuo. You might have upgraded it without knowing it
(probably fault of the tools) or you might have upgraded it assuming
that it wouldn't break compatibility (part your fault for upgrading
blindingly, mostly fault of not having a clear versioning policy and
release notes).

Saying that are many real-world examples is not an argument, there are
examples and rationalities for both opinions; I won't start an example
war. In some cases it's needed to keep backward compatibility, in
other cases it is not. Since backward compatibility increases software
complexity, it costs time now and in the future, so it has to be done
only when there are good reasons to do it. And in this case, I still
don't see any.

So the big questions are: Why did you upgrade? Did you really need to
upgrade?, and Had you had all the information about incompatibilities,
would you've perceived it as a problem?

> When code is free, as in beer, the only real recourse to a serious
> disagreement about the software development policies of the code
> owners is to exercise one's freedom of choice and stop using it.

There is a second option and is discussing about decisions and reasons
behind them, rather than about isolated facts without context. That's
good for both sides unless, as you say, there is a serious
disagreement.

Regards
-- 
Samuel

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"erlware-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.

Reply via email to