Actually, I think there is a world of difference.

Backwards compatibility is something we all need. We need to be able to access content created in previous versions of software in newer versions.

You cannot expect an older version to be compatible with the new features in a later version. Those features did not exist when the software was written. You wouldn't expect to be able to open a document created in the latest version of MS Word (and saved in the latest format) in Word 95, would you?

The only thing I think Oracle should have done differently is to allow either a downgrade or creating a send stream in a lower version (reformatting the data where necessary, and disabling features which weren't present). However, this would not be a simple addition, and it is probably not worth it for Oracle's intended customers.

On 2012-10-23 14:01, Edward Ned Harvey
(opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:

From: Richard Elling [ [1]] At some
point, people will bitterly regret some "zpool upgrade" with no way
back. uhm... and how is that different than anything else in the
software world? No attempt at backward compatibility, and no downgrade path, not even by going back to an older snapshot before the upgrade.
ZFS has a stellar record of backwards compatibility. The only break
with backwards compatibility I can recall was a bug fix in the send
stream somewhere around opensolaris b34. Perhaps you are confusing
backwards compatibility with forwards compatibility?
Semantics. New version isn't compatible with old version, or old version
isn't compatible with new version. Either way, same end result.
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list [2] [3]

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to