On sön, 2012-04-29 at 10:19 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Maybe we don't need to do this over multiple releases, but we do need
> to give warning of possible incompatibilities. It would be good to see
> a specific post on hackers called "Planned Incompatibilities in 9.2",
> or collect such things on the open items wiki, so that people
> listening can see what might happen and get a chance to object. Or if
> changes do go ahead, at least we give them a few months warning to
> change the downstream software. Otherwise all that happens is our new
> release comes out and fewer people use it because it takes ages to
> actually realign the software stack enough for our software to be
> used.
Well, either there are possible incompatibilities, in which case users
will be slow to adopt new releases, as is currently the case, or there
strictly won't be any (unless hidden behind config settings or similar),
but then introducing new features or bug fixes can take many years. So
far we've erred on the side of "progress".