Am Samstag, den 14.03.2020, 10:50 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > Jonas Hahnfeld < > [email protected] > > writes: > > > Am Freitag, den 13.03.2020, 23:09 -0600 schrieb Anthony Fok: > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Jonas Hahnfeld < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > I'm still not convinced that we need compatibility code, but I'm happy > > > > with anything that gets us to a release and is not technically wrong. > > > > > > By the way, from a Debian package maintainer point of view, breaking > > > backward compatibility is OK as long as it is documented, so if > > > breaking backward compatibility makes the code cleaner, more correct, > > > and/or easier to maintain for the future, I'd say "please break > > > compatibility"! > > > > I definitely think that's the case here. > > Backward compatibility will always get retired eventually. For the > current decision the main target is not really distributions since those > tend not to package unstable versions anyway.
Exactly my argument in the past. So who is the "main target" in your opinion? I mostly remember the term "system integrators".
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
