bugzilla 3.0...

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Sat Dec 13 22:05:53 UTC 2003

MattyT wrote:
> I think that 3.0 should not be related to the feature set, so much as
> an opportunity to drop a large amount of backward compatibility cruft. 
> IIRC, the bump to 2.0 was due to either the rewrite to Perl or the
> release to the public.  Neither of these is feature based.

Hey - perhaps we'll bump it to 3.0 when we rewrite Bugzilla in Java. ;-)

> By backward compatibility, I don't mean so much any user-facing page
> cruft, but administrator things like old schema support in checksetup,
> and direct sendmail support.  What I mean by checksetup is that the only
> acceptable way to upgrade from 2.X to 3.X is via an upgrade from 2.last
> to 3.X.  This means we can drop a large amount of schema upgrade code in
> checksetup, all the code that goes from 2.<last to 2.last, or at least
> move it into another script.

Is there ever any reason to do that, apart from the fact that it now 
takes my editor 15 seconds to parse checksetup.pl for syntax highlighting?


More information about the developers mailing list