Hi, On Sat, 17 May 2008, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > With this dedication to backwards-compatibility, we'll be at Windows > > Vista quality in no time. That is silly at best, especially given that Vista is _not_ backwards-compatible. Not to mention that it is not forkable, because it is not Open Source. > I very much agree here, given the nature of scripts (that is, being very > easy to update), I think we should try not to be too strict in > backwards-compatibility or we'll lose the flexibility that is very much > needed when developing a Good Product (tm) As long as such compatibility > breaking changes are marked (in BIG LETTERS) in the changelog/release > notes I think that would be a 'sacrifice' we should consider making. Had you (one of our GSoc students) not replied, I would not even have bothered to say anything. But I strongly disagree with the notion that it is okay to fsck with old-timers (who would be harmed by breaking backwards-incompatibility, and nobody else), especially given that it is mostly old-timers who turned Git into the Good Product(tm) it is. Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
