On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:35 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> For the first how many users did you notice complaining about the biosdevice
> name change, secondly are you seriously saying that if I have a local script
> as in nothing we ship we just hold the presses and nothing in the project
> can be moved forward unless it's backward compatible to my script? That's
> just nonsense.
>
> It's my responsibility to read the release notes or otherwise keep myself
> informed of any changes and keep *my* scripts updated but it's the project
> responsability to try to keep anything we ship from breaking as an result of
> any changes we make.
It's not that black and white. Sure, we can change things, and sure,
sometimes the users will have to work to migrate. Still, the easier
it is to migrate, the better off our users will be, so we should think
hard both about how avoid changing "user interfaces" (using the term
_very_ loosely), and how to design the new "user interfaces" so that
changes are no longer as disruptive.
In this case, a possible example is the migration to firewalld, where
a lot of firewall configuration that used to directly embed interface
names can instead be tied to a zone, with only one place where the
network interface<->zone mapping needs to be modified. So, in a
sense, the F18/F19 transition is a better time to rename network
interfaces than the F17/F18 transition would have been.
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
