[erlang-questions] : Was Re: Bug ?! now Erlang comment (LONG LONG)

[Raimo Niskanen]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:13:06AM +0200, Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> On 2006-10-26 23:35, kostis@REDACTED wrote:
> ...deleted
> > I can continue, but it would be more interesting to also read some
> > arguments from users who are pro maintaining backwards compatibility.
> 
> perhaps the users that are _really_ interested in backwards 
> compatibility are not on the list?
> i would imagine (speculation) that large commercial users that pay for 
> erlang are more into backwards compatibility, and less into 
> erlang-questions.
> 
> as always, i could be wrong.
> 

I think you are sooo right.

If there is _ANY_ suspicion a new release would cause _ANY_ upgrade
problems the customers paying most of our salaries will _NOT_ take
the new release and we will be stuck maintaining the old release
forever, adding new features from new releases when they desire;
essentially forking Erlang/OTP into two.

And that is something we do not need.

> 
> bengt
> -- 
>     EPO guidelines 1978: "If the contribution to the known art resides
>     solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not
>     patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims."
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

-- 

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB