| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-04-06 01:43:26 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZHK93MxN8hc37_g9BFR4H6x-8bqvhPXvLdO+fhdg7t=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> And really, if we are going to lose users for doing what's best for the
> users... they aren't users. They are bus riders in the night, looking for a
> destination they will never find, with a heart heavy with remorse because
> they refuse to commit to anything.
Oh, come on. Are you seriously going to blame users for not being
zealous enough to endure any and all compatibility breaks we might
inflict on them? That seems like blaming the victim. People are
going to pick the tools that are the easiest to use, and
backward-compatibility is part of that. Ease of use is not a feature
of which we have so much that we can afford to squander it.
For the most part, we've been very successful in *not* breaking
backward compatibility and I think we owe a good part of our success
to that. When we've deviated from that principle (ahem, 8.3) it's
been very painful, and I can't imagine why we'd want to go through
that again, unless we just have a masochistic streak.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-04-06 02:01:54 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Darren Duncan | 2016-04-06 01:42:47 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |