On 6/2/14 11:25 AM, "Michael A. Labriola" <labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
>>Makes sense and we probably should have done that in the first place. >>But since we didn't, do we change behavior and risk breaking folks or >>add a flag and keep both code paths? > >The problem I have with two code paths is how do we choose between them? >Are we going to do a version number check or make someone compile >differently, etc.? Also, FWIW as a data point, other than a test which >was expecting a specific error to be thrown, I am going to highly doubt >anyone would even know a change was made unless they were working around >it before. Willing to go either direction but I am always hesitant to be >dragged down by complete backward compatibility, especially for low risk >items. Well, if you want to take the risk, go with the single code path and comment out the mustella tests and if it breaks someone I will point them to you. I won't veto such a change. If it were me, I'd add the flag, default to new behavior, and set the flag in the mustella tests. I agree we don't need to be completely backward compatible for past incorrect behavior, but I'm often reminded of how we think we won't break anybody and then do. -Alex
