On 9/23/21 9:00 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> My chief concern is instability and incompatibility
2021a1 will give you maximum stability and compatibility with 2021a, so
you can use that if equity is not as much of a concern for you.
A requirement of "in order to keep stability and compatibility, you have to adopt a new naming scheme which is incompatible with the old one" seems counterproductive to me. You're basically asking people to choose between stability of naming scheme or stability of data - and unnecessarily, IMO.
If you just changed the names to (say) 2021b and 2021b-equity (or 2021b1 if you prefer) then:
- Those who value stability and compatibility get what they want, at the cost of equity
- Those who value equity get what they want, at the cost of stability and compatibility
Jon