I believe backward compatibility = more potential users. Snow leopard was released 3 years ago and Apple ended it support only this July (unofficially). It still must have millions of people that have it on their lap-tops (some in our lab?). Why losing them as potential IMP users if it is not absolutely necessary? I believe we should be certain we provide very important functionalities before we drop backward compatibility (this also goes for dependencies), since usually, there's no good reason for it.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Russel drussel@gmail.com wrote:
> It is really not clear to me how much backwards support is worth it. >
> For mac os, Apple doesn't do patches for versions older than the current > -1, I believe. So no one should be running 10.6 at this point as they can't > get security updates. So supporting that doesn't seem worthwhile. > > For linux, everywhere I have been it is either upgrade within 6 months or > so of CentOS/RHEL/Ubuntu being upgraded or upgrade to every other version > of Fedora. So again, its not clear that we benefit anyone by supporting > older versions here either. > > For windows, I don't think anyone else will manage to build IMP :-) (I > failed twice), so supporting old compilers there doesn't buy us much either. > > So while it seems nice in theory, I don't see that there is much benefit > in practice to go far back. Has someone been at an institution where older > than the above was used? > > On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Barak Raveh barak.raveh@gmail.com wrote: > > Good point (and Daniel said something similar in different words I think). > > So perhaps as a policy, we can say: "we give XX (2-3) years > backward compatibility, but for rare and true necessities (e.g., python > multiprocessing), you must upgrade your dependencies in order to use IMP > since it's too important and helpful ; And if possible and not too > complicated, we will strive to provide partial functionality even without > such upgrade (e.g., you will have IMP but without python multiprocessing)." > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ben Webb ben@salilab.org wrote: > >> On 07/30/2012 04:52 PM, Barak Raveh wrote: >> >>> I had 2-3 years in mind :) quite an arbitrary figure though. >>> >> >> Right, this is how I chose the most recent versions of Boost to support >> originally. But it makes sense to agree on an "XX" as you suggest. I think >> 2 years is reasonable. >> >> >> It's just that flawed backward compatibility is usually not due to >>> amazing technological breakthroughs we cannot live with out, but >>> probably due to some package changing the name of function X to function >>> Y, or a few #include statements that need to be altered... >>> >> >> True, I think we can live without some fancy CXX11 features. More >> annoying is the lack of some Boost classes and Python modules (only very >> very recent versions of Python ship with the multiprocessing module, for >> example). >> >> >> Ben >> -- >> ben@salilab.org http://salilab.org/~ben/ >> "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." >> - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle >> > > > > -- > Barak > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev > > >