We're going on 3 weeks with a failing Mustella now, and lots of commits still being made to the repo...
Are you ready to revert whatever is causing these failures? You know who you are... EdB On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
