Hi Tomek, This was discussed a while (roughly a year) back on the list and rejected at that time due to the complexity that comes with supporting downgrades (sorry, don’t have the link to that thread handy). Maybe a middle ground would be using the “non_reversible” tag so that users can make an informed decision about upgrading, but not supporting downgrades?
my2c Cheers Michael On 11/01/17 11:26, "Tomek Rekawek" <reka...@adobe.com> wrote: >Hi, > >Some of the Oak users are interested in rolling back the Oak upgrade within a >branch (like 1.4.10 -> 1.4.1). As far as I understand, it should work, unless >some of the commits in (1.4.10, 1.4.10] introduces a repository format change >that is not compatible with the previous version (eg. modifies the format of a >property in the DocumentMK). > >Right now there’s no way to check this other than reviewing all the issues in >the given version range related to the given components. > >Maybe it’d be useful to mark such issues with a label (like >“breaks_compatibility”, “non_reversible", “updates_schema”, etc.)? > >WDYT? Which label should we choose and how we can make sure that it’s really >used in appropriate cases? > >Regards, >Tomek > >-- >Tomek Rękawek | Adobe Research | www.adobe.com >reka...@adobe.com >
