Re: Policy on backwards incompatible changes

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

/ "Johnson, Eric" <Eric.Johnson@iona.com> was heard to say:
| Norman's proposal sounds good to me. More than a year is a long time to
| wait for making changes that break backward compatibility.
|
| I think you could do away with the second rule altogether or make it
| less stringent:
|
| - The change was announced as part of the planning for the major
| release.
|
| Assuming that a major release takes a few months to plan and implement,
| you'd still give people a pretty big window to plan for the change.

Since we're talking about a matter of policy, I want there to name a
precise location where the change will be announced. The release notes
for the current release seem like a good place.

| That also relieves the burden of needing to put out a release simply to
| announce a backwardly incompatible change. As written, if there is no
| need to release an update prior to a major release, you'd be stuck
| making a point release just to make the announcement.

That's a good point.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Throughout history the world has
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | been laid waste to ensure the
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | triumph of conceptions that are
                                   | now as dead as the men that died
                                   | for them.--Henry De Montherlant

PGP signature