Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> writes: > What really doesn't help is to immediately jump to extremes and start > talking about making something volatile just because change is > mentioned.
I am wording this so strongly because we currently have talk about creating more abstract org syntax. This is the situation in which the temptation to skip backwards compatibility is highest — as is the cost of that, because not updating will quickly not be an option (because dependencies will follow). In another situation I would be much more relaxed about this discussion, but when larger refactoring is on the table, it is important that backwards compatibility is high in the priorities. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. draketo.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
