Hi Arne, > 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.
For the sake of staying vaguely on-track, I think it’s worth noting that Ihor’s comments make no mention of changing the Org syntax, or creating an abstract definition (that has existed as a WIP for years). There’s been a bit too much speculation[1] in this thread methinks… All the best, Timothy Footnotes ───────── [1] Don’t get me started on speculations building on speculation.
