[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Feb 10 13:05:38 PST 2014


On 2014-02-10 21:51, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 2/10/2014 12:39 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> I see nothing wrong with: "use the v2 tool for formatting docs in the
>> v2 schema, use the v3 tool for formatting docs in the v3 schema, use
>> the v3 schema for all new docs".  The users here can handle that.
>
> No.  That's an inappropriate requirement, when growing a system, and it
> has a long history of coming back to bite folks in the ass.

Yes.

>>> So I suggest declaring backward compatibility an explcit requirement,
>>> just
>>> so no one else gets confused.
>>
>> I'd rather have a wart-less, clean v3.
>
> It's true that the real world is ugly and awkward.

Yes.

But I really suggest that we discuss this once we get to a decision 
where we actually want to break v2 documents. Right now it's an entirely 
academic argument.

>>> Might even want to say that the conversion tool is for those who
>>> happen to
>>> want to upgrade, but that it isn't required.
>>
>> If you have an explicit backwards-compat requirement why should there
>> be a conversion tool?
>
> I'm a bit confused about that too.

Well, we don't have that backwards-compat requirement right now.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list