> On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:24, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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]> wrote: >> >> > On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:06, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:56, Dale Henrichs >> >> <[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). >> > >> > 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
I agree. It is of course up to each developer to decide how far back they want to support their code. But indeed, the reason to stay with an old(er) version is because you do not want change. Sven
