-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rocky Burt wrote:
On Tue, 2006-28-03 at 08:58 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
-1... Five 1.2 has quite a few differences from Five 1.0 that would stop products written for Five 1.0 from working properly. I've not gone to 2.9 on a few projects for this reason (sticking with 2.8). 2.9 is where the new version belongs, IMO.
Out of curiosity, what are the incompatibilities between Five 1.0 and 1.2/1.3 that hinder you from upgrading?
I'd be extremely eager to know the answer to this myself as I've moved a few production sites from Five 1.0 to 1.2 without breaking any existing functionality.
The point is that people who *want* Five 1.2 can have it, merely by installing it in their instance homes; folks who don't want to do the testing should not be required to assume risks on behalf of those who have a perfectly viable way to upgrade Five if they need it. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEKVzR+gerLs4ltQ4RAjIJAJ90/vTVLgnc+Mmx3ghZUnekSKI3gwCg1Mm8 hmxU6mVxjDqVdqIm1C89IMg= =7FyL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----