backwards compatibility (was Re: Tweak mainstream in Squeak)
stéphane ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Tue Jul 11 12:22:42 UTC 2006
Thanks mike.
We need to improve and build tools to help us controling changes.
I can tell you that merging fixes of parts you believe you know is
difficult so when you do not known this is terrible.
Especially since I care not damaging the system.
Stef
On 11 juil. 06, at 09:19, Michael Rueger wrote:
>
>>> True. Though if few enough people are moving to new versions as
>>> they come out, it's not a very good sign.
>
> That is true, but also depends on what "coming out" means. We
> usually don't consider moving to a new version until the final
> release is out.
> I, for my part, am more than willing to go through some major
> efforts to port stuff to a new version, once it's out.
> But, and that is the same in other systems as well, if you have a
> running system in maintenance mode, you don't port it anyways.
> Fortran IV anyone?
>
> Regarding backward compatibility: many moons ago I had to port a
> system with about 100 packages to a new ObjectWorks version and
> used the backward compatibility packages to make my life easier. So
> I thought. I would have saved a lot time and effort and gained a
> much more robust system if I hadn't done it.
>
> New major Squeak versions come out about once a year, the last two
> gave us m17n and now traits. I think it is well worth the change in
> APIs.
>
> And if the people doing the harvesting work made mistakes in
> refactoring, who is the flawless developer who is going to throw
> the first stone?
>
> But then, I'm just the engineer...
>
> Michael
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|