Me too. Let's make it expicit though. I wonder if reaching a consensus now on completely breaking backwards compatibility will impact adoption of T4. Of course the discussion has started and you can't stop it now.
On a personal note I know that I'm not going to kill myself on a Spindle impl for T4 if I have to throw it all out for T5. And if it's done right T5 is much more attractive to me than T4. On another note, I know that the company I work for will never migrate to T4 if the whole shootin match will change in T5. Everybody know that support for old versions quickly fades when a new version comes out. Perhaps any planning for migration strategies for 'T5' should include migration from T3 to T5. Geoff On 11/2/05, Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/2/05, Geoff Longman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Make the decision and announce that fact for T 4.1 or 5.0 or whatever > > the next version will be called. Then it's up front and plain to see > > before coding even starts and the discussion/development of migration > > strategies, tools, whatever can proceed in parallel. > > Sure, I'm thinking that was the way also Howard thought when talk > about breaking backward compatibility, at least i was thinking that > way. > > -- > Massimo > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net Get help with Spindle: http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/spindle-user Announcement Feed: http://www.jroller.com/rss/glongman?catname=/Announcements Feature Updates: http://spindle.sf.net/updates --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
