[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Health] Incompatible version of server (demo account)
From: |
Cédric Krier |
Subject: |
Re: [Health] Incompatible version of server (demo account) |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Dec 2014 11:04:42 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On 25 Dec 20:05, Axel Braun wrote:
> Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 22:28:52 schrieb Cédric Krier:
>
> > > This kind of problems proofs that the client should be
> > > backwards-compatible. although the Tryton maintainer has a different view
> > > on this...
> > It is not a proof at all! The client behaves correctly by showing a
> > correct error message.
> > Backward compatibility is an aberration.
>
> Right, the client works as designed.
> And the design is right according to academic principles, or according to
> 'true religion'.
>
> But there is a real world, and the troubles that esp. new users have, proof
> that the design is an aberration. You need to think big, Ced!
The current design is thinking big, backward compatibility is thinking
small.
> There are certain advantages that backward compatibility has
> - fix bugs only in one location/version, instead of all versions
> - use the latest client and take advantage from all bugfixes applied so far.
Both statements show a lack of knowledge in software design and maintenance.
It is not because something is backward compatible that it means you
don't have the bug fixes older versions.
> - and maybe the largest one, esp in once you run Tryton in a larger
> organization: have one client and be able to test / try various
> Tryton/GNUHealth versions.
Being able to install different version of Tryton is a limitation of
Python packaging system. But it is doable because we do it for Windows
and I'm pretty sure it is doable by packager:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103128.html
> Useful e.g. for testing release upgrades. I know, someone (Nicolas?) proposed
> to tweak/script some way around it, but this is not user friendly.
I don't understand. This has nothing to do with client backward
compatibility.
> I agree that a backward compatibility to ancient releases is not a good
> way...see A20 gate!
You are mixing topics. We are not talking about hardware nor OS.
> Successful companies and projects have one thing in common: They listen to
> the needs of their customers / users.
You are just hearing what you want to hear and try to force us to do
some work for you. This doesn't work this way.
> Maybe we make a poll for this?
Don't care of a poll if nobody does the work.
If you care so much about writing a backward compatible client, feel
free to do it. It is free-software.
--
Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL
Email/Jabber: address@hidden
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/