On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, John Peterson wrote: > Hmm... I wouldn't mind just going cold turkey on switching this over.
Whenever we force people to decide "my code will be compatible with libMesh versions older than M or with versions newer than N", I greatly prefer it if N is less than M and if there's at least one official release in between. > I don't think people will start switching over their apps in the > meantime, as long as the default configure option maintains the > status-quo. True. What I'd been planning with the namespace is: 1. No namespace 2. Namespace, but for compatibility "using namespace libMesh" in our own headers is configured on by default 3. Namespace, but "using namespace libMesh" in our own headers is configured off by default 4. Namespace, and the compatibility configure option no longer exists. (with the namespace, we're still at stage 2) We could do similar here. Stage 3 gives people incentive to update app code without forcing them to make the update immediately, and gives us better standing if we ever want to move to stage 4. --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/ _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
