Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini schrieb: > Danny Angus wrote: >> On 10/24/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I've added this point because Noel and Vincenzo brought this as an >>> important point in the 2.4 roadmap discussion. >>> I personally don't care of config.xml compatibility: I was just >>> reporting what I understood was important (and feasible) to the PMC. >> >> Fair enough, in that case I direct my point to Noel and Vincezo ;-) >> >> > We just stressed the fact that life must be kept as much as possible > easy for users when upgrading to new release, otherwise they may stay > behind. Regarding configurations, this goal can be achieved either > keeping as much as possible backward compatibility for existing > features, either providing (safe and thoroughly tested) conversion > tools. But we have to be aware that slowly adding small configuration > incompatibilities can sum up to require complex conversion tools, that > nobody would develop and would become a bottleneck when releasing a > new version. > > Open Source Communities can create better and smarter software than > Commercial Companies, but the latter normally care more of existing > "dumb" users: we should always try to reach a good compromise ;-) . > > Vincenzo
Thats right but with no new features we will loose users and not get new.. I think we just need to document what to change in config.xml. I allready add an UPGRADING.txt to the 2.3 branch. If we add some new feature which need things the get changed in config.xml we just should document it in a UPGRADING.txt bye Norman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
