On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com>

> My main concern is that a commitment to never, ever break backwards
> compatibility is a commitment to obsolescence.

​​You started this sub-thread with:

"If I understand correctly..."

​I'm not sure that you do...​

Our scheme is, in your terms, basically:


where <major> is a decimal.

You cannot reason about the whole and fraction portions of the decimal

When <major> changes backward compatibility can be broken - with respect to
both API and implementation.

It therefore makes sense to
> reserve room in the numbering scheme to be clear and honest about when
> backwards compatibility has been broken.  The major number is the normal
> place to do that.

​I'm not convinced there is enough risk here to compromise the present in
order to accommodate some unknown ​scenario that may never even come to

David J.

Reply via email to