On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Eric Dorland <e...@debian.org> wrote: >> That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding. > > Can you elaborate why?
No. I'm just being paranoid. But there is good precedent for paranoia being the right setting in matters of backwards compatibility. > If the promise of compatibility is real, what's the downside? I can think of two: 1) users wanting to check to see if their code is compatible with automake-1.13 2) users wanting to regenerate the same data file as automake-1.13 did, to avoid unneeded diffs >> If I were sticking my neck out, I'd keep on with the old scheme, >> where automake-1.13 means automake 1.13. It would surprise people less. > > Well I think if it doesn't work it shouldn't be difficult to down the > road provide an automake1.13 package. So the risk doesn't seem that > high. But you will still surprise users in the two categories I mentioned. - Dan
