On Jan 2, 2008, at 9:20 PM, fredistic wrote:
> Breaking backward compatibility is a luxury that only open-source
> developers can afford. It costs nothing to lose customers if they
> aren't paying. If you need to maintain your customer base (like, for
> example, Microsoft does) then you do anything to avoid breaking
> backward compatibility.
Fortunately, open-source projects are not run by money. They respect
their users, and that's why there's a cycle of deprecation/removal
going on. Warnings about deprecated stuff all over the place,
documentation, etc.
A major release is allowed to break things, that's what the 2.0
signals. You can put the version of Rails your application is known to
run OK under vendor/rails, or revise and upgrade.
To polish and continue improving something you need to add, but you
need to cut as well. A major release allows cutting.
-- fxn
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
