On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because the fact to the matter is - we invented Version to allow for > changes w/o breaking back-compat, while the backwards section in CHANGES > seems to grow from release to release (I know - I'm partly to blame for it > :)), and another fact is that I don't remember even one complaint about a > change which broke back-compat. People have raised this issue numerous times > in the past, even proposed all sorts of contracts and definitions on how we > can be 'allowed' to break back-compat ... but nothing came out of it. > Lets not dance around the real issue then. -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
