[maemo-developers] Backwards compatibility broken PR1.1 SDK

[From: Igor Stoppa]

ext Graham Cobb wrote:

> It is still my view that, if at all possible, applications should install on 
> the initial release.  Otherwise we lose those applications for a large part 
> of our user base (those who got a device with an earlier version of the 
> software and have not upgraded).
>
>   

this is the point where we disagree: _at_the_moment_ your user base 
might be using the earlier version of the sw, but even if none of them 
was to update, the proportion are going to change in the future, hence 
my proposal below

>> For example, what about actively supporting (at any point in time) the
>> current and previous official build?
>> That should cover the vast majority of the users and ensure that you do
>> not deal constantly with bugs that have already been fixed.
>>     
>
> I don't object to applications rejecting bugs (and even a Maemo policy which 
> says that bug reports will be rejected) if the device is not running the 
> latest or previous firmware.  But that is different from building them such 
> that they will not install on previous versions.
>   

I didn't mean that, just what you said, actively support only recent sw.

> This really isn't hard!  For the vast majority of applications there is no 
> reason at all why they cannot be built against the first software release and 
> install on all later releases, taking advantage of the bug fixes made since.  
> I have been doing that for GPE since the first Maemo release.  That is what 
> the autobuilder should be doing by default -- no need to make life hard for 
> users **by default**!
>   

Building is not so much my concern, but rather testing: what is going to 
be the accepted environment for approving and releasing a new version of 
your sw? Hopefully not the first sales release.

> All we need is an exception process for the very, very few apps which want to 
> make use of the few new features introduced in the new releases. 

I think the impact of new features varies greatly depending on the POV.
Graphics is a very good example: if an application doesn't rely on 
OpenGL or QT, then it's no problem.
But for a vast class of applications there will be a significant difference.

>  That is why 
> I proposed the alternate builder queues which will cause the builder to use a 
> later SDK.  Any application built using one of the alternate queues will not 
> install on all versions of Fremantle so using it is discouraged unless it is 
> necessary.
>   

Yes, I think we mostly agree, it's just the expectations/forecast about 
future applications development that are different.

igor