Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2016 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Michael Meeks wrote:
On 24/11/16 18:34, Zolnai Tamás wrote:
Can I have some code pointers from the last 5 years which shows when
it is "absolutely necessary" to break compatibility? To see when it's
acceptable to do such thing.

      I think its worth discussing it with the ESC if its significant.

Seconded. And if you look at the type reference history, you notice we
were trying really quite hard not to break published API. It can be
avoided almost all the time.

I'll repeat the point I made during the ESC here: there's a price when
one breaks things (API, work flows, interop) for users - beyond a
certain limit, they consider your project not worth using
anymore. Since the livelihood for a number of people on this list
depends on LibreOffice having more users, instead of having less, I
really rather feel quite strongly about those things.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.