Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: >> Whoever creates B-1.1 ought to make it backward-compatible, but he >> should also say so. The majority of developers are careless about >> backward-compatibility; having the component system make wishful >> assumptions will lead to catastrophic consequences. > > I strongly disagree. All your idea would do is create a massive > compatibility matrix, which would itself become utterly > unmaintainable.
Well, it's working and very much maintainable. > It's all very well to ask for a declaration that 1.1 is compatible > with 1.0, but what happens when you add in 1.2 and 1.3, and then add > some point releases on all of them? The compatibility statement accepts ranges and can be open-ended. > And just how compatible does it have to be to get a tick? It must be a safe binary replacement of the earlier version. Bug fixes and new features are ok, but none of the old functionality can be obsoleted. Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
