Breaking schema changes

[David Cheney]

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Mark Canonical Ramm-Christensen <
mark.ramm-christensen at canonical.com> wrote:

> Mostly, it is to combat the perception that we are making breaking changes
> at a rapid pace, and therefore aren't stable enough for real world use.
>
>
Understood, although I repeat my assertion that we should do several major
upgrade actions (even if they do not consitute a visible major upgrade from
a numeric point of view) to iron out the process.


> Secondarily, it is so that we are aware of and controlling when
> backwards incompatible changes land in trunk, and are preserving the
> ability to release 2.0 as an important milestone (it's only psychological,
> but that does not mean it's not *important*).
>

I have no comment on consecutive version numbers other than they are
present an additional artificial constraint on an already difficult
problem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20130529/ded936eb/attachment.html>