James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 14:36 Uhr:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:15 AM Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > In the light of the current discussions, you may be right. > > > > However, what I still don't understand: Why is BC such an issue for > people? > > > > I think, it is perfectly reasonable to do, what other projects do: > > > > - Maintain several release branches. > > - Depending on the branch, limit yourself to binary compatible changes, > or > > not. > > - Whenever binary incompatibilities are desirable: Create a new > > branch, and start to > > publish releases out of that branch. > > > > So, what is the big deal? > > > > > I totally agree with you, but it is as if this community has a seemingly > "maintain backward compatibility at all costs" mentality which can be > tremendously stifling to innovation. We should be able to maintain (and we > have to for security patches) multiple release streams (2 or 3 seems > reasonable). Obviously there's a balance we have to maintain, but I think > we have been way too far on one side of the spectrum for far too long. > People just aren't having much fun any more. For a completely > volunteer-based work force, fun is important. > I think Andrey has made a point in the ohter thread that the backwards compatibility is exactly what users like the findbugs project are looking for... Benedikt
