Confusion about use of G2

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:59:35PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Josh Sled <jsled at asynchronous.org>:
> 
> >On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 16:42 -0400, Josh Sled wrote:
> >>(Assuming budgets are in 2.0, which I don't think they should be...) I'd
> >>be fine if both FreqSpec and Recurrence are in the code at the commit,
> >>and frankly even at the release.  Ideally, though, the concepts merge
> >>ASAP, and certainly not past the following release.  I'm happy to handle
> >>the SX side of the switch (as I generally need to cleanup the SX code),
> >>but I'm not going to do that until after 2.0.
> >
> >Eh, sorry; strike the parenthetical in the first line, but I do assert
> >the rest.
> 
> I'm not at all comfortable with both FreqSpec and Recurrence being in the
> code at releasetime.  My reasoning:  Datastore issues.  We should have
> one and only one storage schema for the FS/Rec concept.  My hesitancy
> for commiting without the merge is that it reduces the "fire" to merge
> them.  If the code wont be committed without the merge then it provides
> more incentive to merge them..   Maybe I'm cynical.

I haven't given this a lot of thought, but don't you *need* both
storage schema concurrently in order to provide forward compatibility?
I.e. read using old schema, convert, write using new schema.

-chris

> 
> -derek
> 
> -- 
>       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
>       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
>       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
>       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available
>