Antoine Pitrou writes:
How can they know that they depend on "a quirk in behaviour of an older version" if a newer version hasn't been released? This sounds bogus.
Of course a newer version has been released. Who said it hasn't been? Eg, the discussion of <=2.5. Hasn't 2.6 been released? Or am I hallucinating?
So, what you are saying is that software X specifies that it is compatible with "2.5 or later" as long as 2.6 hasn't been released, but when 2.6 is released it switches to "2.5 but not 2.6"?
No, I'm not.
Let's drop it, as Tarek seems disposed to dismiss the bikeshedding (including this subthread) anyway, which is TheRightThing.