Re: GNU Automake 1.14 released

[Dan Kegel]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Eric Dorland <address@hidden> wrote:
>> That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding.
>
> Can you elaborate why?

No.  I'm just being paranoid.  But there is good precedent for
paranoia being the right setting in matters of backwards compatibility.

> If the promise of compatibility is real, what's the downside?

I can think of two:
1) users wanting to check to see if their code is compatible with
automake-1.13
2) users wanting to regenerate the same data file as automake-1.13
did, to avoid unneeded diffs

>> If I were sticking my neck out, I'd keep on with the old scheme,
>> where automake-1.13 means automake 1.13.  It would surprise people less.
>
> Well I think if it doesn't work it shouldn't be difficult to down the
> road provide an automake1.13 package. So the risk doesn't seem that
> high.

But you will still surprise users in the two categories I mentioned.
- Dan