db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Should we vote on it? (was Re: Discussion (in preparation for a vote) on interface stability table)
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:10:39 GMT
David W. Van Couvering wrote:

> I also wanted to respond to the suggestion that compatibility be
> guaranteed for a given time period, versus tying it to release levels.
>
> If we don't *require* that major releases be incompatible, but simply
> say this is the only time you *can* do it, then I don't see what the
> issue is.  We can do as many major releases as we want in five years.
>
> If we want to also provide a guarantee that any feature will not be
> broken for five years, that's OK, but I think it would be odd to break
> compatibility in a minor release just because it's been five years...
>
> Or am I not fully understanding your proposal, Kathey?

It is not a proposal, kind of more of a typical user requirement.   I
need to think some more on how to that might be implemented from a
product perspective.      Perhaps the  guarantee of   client/server
compatibility with the previous and next major release  would be a  
more realistic approach.  Certainly the kind of jump suggested where
there is no compatibility between v10 and v11 clients and servers would
be a very hard move for users.     Upgrade is another area I need to 
understand better across major version boundaries.  Anyway, all just
random thoughts at this point.   As I said I need to think more. I will
study your proposal and all this just as soon as I can and get back.

Kathey





Mime
View raw message