[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Feb 10 13:17:33 PST 2014


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> 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.

Some perspective on costs and benefits would be nice.

We're talking about a special-purpose application with hundreds of
users who almost by definition are smart enough to figure out a lot of
things on their own (including reading the output of the program in
question) and who soon enough won't even remember that there ever was
a v2 -much less a v1- of this thing..  I grant you that we -those
users- sometimes fail to demonstrate the abilities I'm imputing us...
but it's still likely not worth developers' time and effort to
maintain backwards compatibility.

Nico
--


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list