At 12:51 AM 11/4/2009 -0500, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: >With the 2.x series, users and operating systems seem to move on >fairly rapidly, because dependencies generally continue to work if you >upgrade just one version. This isn't quite as formal a requirement as >I would like (warnings get generated, unit tests fail, things do >break) but in practice, users can rely on it for most functionality. >If 3.x could be broken into a series of transitions like that, where >you can upgrade one version, fix some stuff, then upgrade another >version, even if you couldn't actually support more than 2 versions at >once, I think that we could pick up the migration pace to the point >where we might actually be using 3.x syntax in a few years. Having a >2.x series which goes to 2.9 and then stops isn't *quite* the same >thing as having one that moves over continuously to some 3.x version, >but it does seem to me that by that point the chasm between versions >will have narrowed to a crack, and the migration will be a little hop >over it rather than the currently-required great flying leap. +1 (I actually thought this was the original plan.)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4