Hi Arne,

> I am wording this so strongly because we currently have talk about
> creating more abstract org syntax.
>
> This is the situation in which the temptation to skip backwards
> compatibility is highest — as is the cost of that, because not updating
> will quickly not be an option (because dependencies will follow).
>
> In another situation I would be much more relaxed about this discussion,
> but when larger refactoring is on the table, it is important that
> backwards compatibility is high in the priorities.

For the sake of staying vaguely on-track, I think it’s worth noting that Ihor’s
comments make no mention of changing the Org syntax, or creating an abstract
definition (that has existed as a WIP for years).

There’s been a bit too much speculation[1] in this thread methinks…

All the best,
Timothy



Footnotes
─────────

[1] Don’t get me started on speculations
building on speculation.