home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- >
- > 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.
- >
-
- 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.
-
- > I would hate to be in the position of using a crufty old piece of code simply
- > 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
-
- --------
- Christian Ratliff \ clotho, atropos, lachesis, paraguay, uruguay,
- <ratlifc@ctron.com> / leto, laba, vesta, hermes, prometheus, edi,
- Sales Systems Administrator \ indikos, grendel, argent, indikos, aardvark,
- Cabletron Systems, Inc. / cerebrus
-
-
-
-