3 ms·

Well said. Redis is almost 100 percent backward compatible back to the first release, so I never found a good reason to support old released. Want support? Upgr

Well said. Redis is almost 100 percent backward compatible back to the first release, so I never found a good reason to support old released. Want support? Upgrade... Of course this does not stop an infinite stream of bug reports about several years old releases.

jt2190 9y ago
I believe that the Angular team is also taking this approach. [1] [1] At ng-conf 2017, the core team was asked whether they'd consider designating LTS releases, and the answer was essentially what you're saying here: They work very hard to be backward compatible, and encourage everyone to move _forward_ instead of getting stuck in the past.
- jt2190 9y ago
  Here's a link to a video where the Angular team answers the LTS question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rboo-s9yq8s&feature=youtu.be&list=PLOETEcp3DkCoS_2cW205cfRGl-Xp5jw4K&t=2192 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rboo-s9yq8s&feature=youtu.be...
- gaius 9y ago
  Didn't they break everything between versions 1 and 2? If that's "backwards compatible" I hate to think what their LTS would have looked like.
  - dcherman 9y ago
    They did, but quite honestly they should have just renamed the framework; Angular 1->2 is less of an upgrade and more of a completely new framework that happens to share the same name. It was a mistake imo, but one they made because Angular is a household name amongst web devs. From what I understand, they've done a better job from Angular 2-5.