Jeremy Ruston wrote: > Every time this topic comes up we end up going round in circles with > people proposing new names. Let’s try to avoid that, it just gets in the > way of the much more complex discussion that we actually need about why and > how we want to do this. >
Fair enuff (but the thread title certainly invites for this). Could you elaborate more on what "...that is less constrained by backwards compatibility" means? To start off, do you (merely) mean it as an opportunity to make a one time correction of some past mistakes or do you mean a change in philosophy, i.e to let go of the "backward compatibility"-effort with a version that is more open to continuous backward breaking changes (like most other software is)? A (very) important aspect that I hope can be kept in mind when major functionality changes are considered, is how the very biggest concepts like federation could be enabled and some solution to the huge problem we have with infrastructure for dispersing plugins. <:-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/50db1ef4-59fe-4542-8bb0-59e36395adc1n%40googlegroups.com.
