On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Edward Caissie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edward.caissie@gmail.com">edward.caissie@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Chip Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net" target="_blank">chip@chipbennett.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>So you're leaning toward no backward-compatibility support beyond one prior major version?</div><div><br></div><div>I can live with that. It's probably the best we'll be able to do.</div></blockquote></div>
<br></div>In a perfect world, yes, but we all know the world is imperfect. How we implement a minimal to no backward-compatibility approach is going to be the real challenge; more so than the actual time-frame we work out.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>That's the exact opposite of our core philosophies though. If they want to support back to the end of time, I don't see why we need to prevent them from doing so. Not our problem and it should not make theme reviews harder.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If this is about deprecated functions, then they should be surrounding things in function_exists checks, so proper functions get run when they are available. If the upload script catches such functions, then it's still not our problem. That's the solution, really... Don't worry about it, and let the upload script bark at them.</div>
</div>