Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Marko Rauhamaa Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: module dependencies issues Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:33:48 +0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 27 Message-ID: <87k2u96mo3.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> References: <10ADE079-3F0F-4EA8-9312-06F7FCDB6130@free.fr> <85B68343-326C-4768-A236-3459299AD129@free.fr> <87wpy96pbd.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87oajl6nol.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b7cb1518d23ec19d482dcc9c31d30fdd"; logging-data="962"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WELaIv1xTUhUrnI30p9Bn" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:HXlhpBCL7IWrDPEy65Bp4Wl7oU8= sha1:ON6AYf3nTHa19qyvw0DjRPrOMxc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:93612 Chris Angelico : > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> Whoever creates B-1.1 ought to make it backward-compatible, but he >> should also say so. The majority of developers are careless about >> backward-compatibility; having the component system make wishful >> assumptions will lead to catastrophic consequences. > > I strongly disagree. All your idea would do is create a massive > compatibility matrix, which would itself become utterly > unmaintainable. Well, it's working and very much maintainable. > It's all very well to ask for a declaration that 1.1 is compatible > with 1.0, but what happens when you add in 1.2 and 1.3, and then add > some point releases on all of them? The compatibility statement accepts ranges and can be open-ended. > And just how compatible does it have to be to get a tick? It must be a safe binary replacement of the earlier version. Bug fixes and new features are ok, but none of the old functionality can be obsoleted. Marko