19 replies to this topic

[mikef]

I can understand (and support) making changes to the requirements for the next major version (coccoon?). Making a change in requirements for a patch-level release however will cause problems for some current users (as above) and makes Randy's comparison with changes in requirements for new Microsoft operating systems even more of a nonsense ... Microsoft as far I know never knowingly released a patch to their operating systems or other software that caused it not to work on machines that previously worked.

In my opinion:
- bug/security fixes should continue to work in the environment that was originally required for the release.
- if new features require a different requirement, its time to start a beta or preview process for a new version, either 0.6.2 or coccoon, and put the new features in there.

[Cris D.]

Although I voted for SQL ver. 4 (my host) I also use XXAMP for testing which currently offers 3.2.

[Ralph]

The issues presented are being addressed... What we may do, although I haven't bounced this off Randy as yet, is to do some version checks so we can provide new techniques for newer releases while having backwards compatibility until our next major release...

What I would like everyone to take into consideration is that with technologies advancing at such a high rate of speed that it can sometimes be difficult to balance new and improved features while still taking legacy functionality into account... Sooner or later we can't have it both ways... What you will see is that the current Prelude code base will be parked in a "maintenance mode only" status with no further enhancements, regardless of who wants what... Any enhancements would be put into the next major release only and users would simply have to wait... The only alternative would be along the lines of individualized customizations, probably in the form of paid customizations due to the amount of time it takes not only to write the customizations but also accounting for the time that doing so draws from working on new code...

Now everyone knows why we, at one time, stated that the wish list is closed for discussion... Until we get our heads firmly rooted in the new overall code base it doesn't do much good to keep asking for more and more... Let us get the capabilities in there which will enable us to more readily provide all of the future "I wants"... We don't need each and every individual "I want" in order to make that happen, trust me...

[Ralph]

Cris D., on Mar 17 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

Although I voted for SQL ver. 4 (my host) I also use XXAMP for testing which currently offers 3.2.

To the best of my knowledge, Etomite never did openly state that it supported MySQL < 4.0 although it does appear to...

[Dean]

Yeah, the documentation said it did for some reason