[openbeos] Re: Openness

  • From: "Andrew McCall" <andrew.mccall@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:54:14 +0100

On 14/05/07, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ryan Leavengood" <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 6) Some consideration should be made NOW as to the direction of the
> project post R1. If this work has already been done by the admin team
> (in private), some of it should be published.

I'm not sure we can even decide now how we'll proceed after R1 is out.

I can think of one example where detailing the future of Haiku might
make sense, but I also appreciate that no one really knows where Haiku
post R1 will go.

The issue I can think of is backwards compatibility.  If I knew that
R2 was 99% positive to break binary compatibility, I might choose to
re-write an application for example, Gobe Productive, rather than
working on strange or broken API's etc. to make it compatible with
under Haiku R1.

While I am sure that R2 will break binary compatibility, I don't think
its officially been stated at Haiku-os.org (correct me if I am wrong).
It might be nice to have issues as large as this listed somewhere.


Andrew McCall

Other related posts: