testtools-dev team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1, although my understanding is that our backwards compat breaks have
almost always been unintentional.

Is our test set up such that we can reasonably make this commitment?

If we had more time/energy, it'd be nice to do a quick review of the
exposed API that we're committing ourselves to.




On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Robert Collins
<robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> we broke subunit by removing 'all' so there was a firedrill there.
>
> I think it's time we did a 1.0.0 and committed to not breaking
> backwards compat without doing 2.0.0
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> Robert Collins <rbtcollins@xxxxxx>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~testtools-dev
> Post to     : testtools-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~testtools-dev
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>