bzrlib / loggerhead version binding? (and, well, other plugins version binding)

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12-02-09 11:48 AM, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> 
> Toshio did an amazing job in turning around the Fedora change in
> record time - thanks!
> 
> 
> To the underlying part of the question, though:  at what point do
> you know you need to do a binding to a bzrlib version in a plugin?
> I understand the case of "I'm depending on something that's not
> introduced until 2.5.0" but I'm surprised at plugins which reject
> bzrlib as being too new...

The opposite can happen too-- "I'm depending on something which no
longer exists / is deprecated / doesn't work the way it used to."

> is there a reason one would want to do that except caution 
> (excluding things one hasn't explicity tested against, because
> they didn't exist yet)?

Yes, it is caution.  We can't be sure we will provide a good
experience to users until it is actually tested.  That said, plugins
like bzrtools will run with the next untested beta version.  It
complains about releases because there's really no good reason not to
test during the release process.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk80B98ACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI1BMwCffWr8O0TnKUTn5D5uKAlTiq5e
2iwAnRyG0XbMGK/1kYVjcbuV20h6cZy2
=5NWI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----