db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Should we vote on it? (was Re: Discussion (in preparation for a vote) on interface stability table)
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:00:55 GMT
I think we should clarify the page, then.  My intent was not that a 
major release *will* be incompatible.  My intent was that a major 
release *might* be incompatible, whereas minor releases can *not* be 
incompatible.

David

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> 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