Re^3: RFC: CGI::Uploader V 2.90

"Vast changes were made, based on what I wanted the module to do, compared to what it used to do. The list of changes is not so important, actually."

While I agree that it's useful for people to see if your interface is user friendly, to say that the list of changes isn't important seems to fly in the face of everyone using the original module doesn't it? If they're happy with the old module, why should they change without seeing the list of changes you've made?

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable - Barry Goldwater

Comment on Re^3: RFC: CGI::Uploader V 2.90_01

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: CGI::Uploader V 2.90_01 by ron.savage (Acolyte) on Dec 04, 2008 at 02:43 UTC
I see your point. I was concerned that the changes would be assessed in a tiny-point by tiny-point manner, which would obscure the view of the overall redesign. Also, I want people using the previous version to stop and think about their app design, not just expect that a couple of lines need to be changed. That's why the version has jumped to 2.90* in preparation for release as V 3.	[reply]
Re^5: RFC: CGI::Uploader V 2.90_01 by Zen (Deacon) on Dec 12, 2008 at 19:08 UTC
If you have rewritten and broken backwards compatibility, and you don't know of/don't care about the migration of existing users (I hear you saying, if it doesn't work then their design is bad and thus their fault), why not make it a new module entirely or a subclass? I'd be upset if I upgraded a module and found it was wildly different, requiring me to rewrite my app if I wanted to use it.	[reply]