Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

> What really doesn't help is to immediately jump to extremes and start
> talking about making something volatile just because change is
> mentioned.

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.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de