> On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:17, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Max Leske <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:06, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:56, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]
> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Damien,
> >>
> >> I'm using zeroconf for Pharo 1.2, 1.4 and 2.0 ... I still test Metacello
> >> against Pharo1.1 ... I would use zeroconf with 1.3 but there is something
> >> funkily different between what is available on zeroconf for 1.3 and what
> >> actually "works" for for 1.3
> >> (https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/30567/PharoCore-1.3-13328.zip
> >> <https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/30567/PharoCore-1.3-13328.zip>).
> >
> > why? I do not think anyone is using Pharo < 2.0 (and not even 2.0, with the
> > exception of some legacy apps)
> > this “forever backward compatibility” ends up being really complicated.
>
> I am actually, Pharo1.1.1, Pharo1.3 and Pharo1.4 (don’t judge… :) ).
>
> I do not judge. I pity :))
>
It is ok to use them, but people should not expect that packages and framework
will be updated.
(and this even defeats the purpose: people use old version *becasue they do not
want change*.
If we update stuff under their feet (Zinc, Metacello…) this will lead to
exactly what they do not want.
We should consider old version to be frozen, *including* the frameworks and
tools.
Marcus
