Subject: Re: External files & allowable contributions

From: Jeffrey Robert Blum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 14:03:47 -0400

Guaranteeing that every release is 100% backward comapatible will be extremely  
difficult, I think, and will eventually hinder the kit's development. Perhaps  
we should guarantee backward compatibility in minor releases, but reserve the  
right to make non-backward compatible changes in major (full integer) releases.

I would hate to be in the position of using a crufty old piece of code simply  
in order to maintain 100% backward compatibility.

-jeff

>  Also, what about the collision caused by two different applications  
requiring two
> different revisions of the Kit? If you could garuntee that _every_  
contribution to 

> the Kit had a consistently backward-compatible interface and semantics then  
this
> might not be a problem, however...
> 

> christian

> --------
> Christian Ratliff            \ clotho, atropos, lachesis, paraguay, uruguay,
> <[email-masked]>          / leto, laba, vesta, hermes, prometheus, edi,
> Sales Systems Administrator  \ indikos, grendel, argent, indikos, aardvark,
> Cabletron Systems, Inc.      / cerebrus
>

---

From: "Christian A. Ratliff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 14:28:16 -0700

> right to make non-backward compatible changes in major (full integer) releases.

  What then will we do about applications that need two different revisions of
and object simultaneously? Should there be a capability for the MiscKit tree to
have a 'revision level' as an early branch?   "$MISCKITHOME/$REV/$OBJECT" ??
  This could have the potential advantage of supporting both an 'installed'
Kit and a 'beta revision' of the Kit for developers and beta-testers.

> in order to maintain 100% backward compatibility.

  No kidding. I should think that the weight that backward compatibility would add
to each object would deter the users of the Kit as well.

later,
christian

--------