On Sep 6, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Goubier Thierry <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Le 06/09/2013 12:34, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit : >> >> On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Goubier Thierry <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Le 05/09/2013 22:04, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who says that? We always said that we will back-port all imported fixes >>>>>> to 2.0. We will not back-port *everything*, especially >>>>>> not improvements that are not fixes, because then there would be no >>>>>> difference between Pharo3 and Pharo2 (and these >>>>>> tend to introduce new problems, making it very hard to stabilize). >>>>> >>>>> Are you afraid that by improving Pharo2 on a production-level, you would >>>>> remove incentives to move to pharo3? >>>> >>>> No just that we do not want to stop 3.0. Because changing 20 will >>>> introduce bug we are 100% convinced about that. >>>> The system is still not in a situation where changes are simple and with >>>> limited impact. >>> >>> As you said, 2.0 has bugs. Look, at one point, we even had a 2.5 in the >>> works (who did it, already? Sean? Sven?). >> >> no, we don't >> bah, we have 2S, which would be the "2.5" if you want. Also Sean made >> something to install some new issues from 3 in the older version... but >> that's not a new version, is just that Sean wanted to have some things >> immediately :) > > This looks like a very nice 2.0. > So you want more change in 2.0? You can have that, but you need to accept instability. There is no way to have both more changes and more stability. Marcus
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
