Yo Daniel! On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:50:12 -0400 Daniel Franke <dfoxfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An empty specification in my new language has different semantics than
> an empty specification in the old language so at some point there will
> have to be a flag day as to which way it is interpreted, but I don't
> think this is as big a deal as you've made it out to be.
I think it is a big deal. UNtil we have our own rabid base of followers
the only way NTPsec grows is by taking NTP Classic users. They will
want a drop in replacement.
So any upward extensible is fine, but trivial back-compatibility is
essential.
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588
pgpUS9jkAdWXu.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
