db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Should we vote on it? (was Re: Discussion (in preparation for a vote) on interface stability table)
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:23:02 GMT
Kathey Marsden wrote:

> Rick Hillegas wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think you may have already addressed the following issues in email,
>>but I don't see the results rolled onto the wiki page. Please pardon
>>my nitpicking. This kind of discussion turns me into a tiresome,
>>pedantic Mr. Hyde:
>>
>>1) The cardinal rule. I recommend wordsmithing the cardinal rule: "The
>>goal is to allow any application written against the public interfaces
>>an older version of Derby can run, without any changes, against a
>>newer version of Derby." To me the following formulation reads better
>>"This is our goal: An application which ran against Derby yesterday
>>will run against a higher version of Derby tomorrow."
>>
> 
> I prefer the original wording with only a small grammatical change to
> instead of can.
> 
> "The goal is to allow any application written against the public
> interfaces an older version of Derby to run, without any changes,
> against a newer version of Derby."
> 
> It is good to think past tomorrow.

+1

The push towards allowing a major release to change things worries me.
It may be that we need to do this from time to time, but it should not
be the primary goal.
Dan.



Mime
View raw message