Hi Andrew, "Andrew McCall" <andrew.mccall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Actually, I didn't mean what kind of features Haiku will have after R1, but how the whole administrative process is going to be. For now, the current means work nicely for what we want to achieve - but after R1, non-development tasks will have a much higher priority. > 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. While we have nothing set into stone yet, the general consensus was that we'll switch to GCC 4 and will rework the API a bit - but still try to keep compatibility by providing compatibility libraries that will allow you to seemlessly use your old stuff; just new apps won't work on older Haiku versions, then. We'll see how that will work out. Bye, Axel.