I'm glad they're doing this, and it's an unpleasant surprise that they didn't already work this way. I don't understand why they allow mutable releases.
I'm glad they're doing this, and it's an unpleasant surprise that they didn't already work this way. I don't understand why they allow mutable releases.
Nobody thought about mutable releases being utterly bad _before_? Baffles me...
As bad as hardware vendors selling products with different chips inside as the same model (hello Cisco -- at least in former times; hello HP, formerly selling at least three different, _incompatible_ laptop power supplies with the same label).
Mutability: surprise, surprise, I'm not what you expected! -- maybe one of IT's worst ideas.
I've done it myself, create a release, upload it, download to a different machine and discover it doesn't work there, so fix and retest. Only after all those steps do I hit send on the release announcement. This is a useful workflow (particularly the first time you release when you don't even know what you are doing).
So long as nobody abuses that mutable releases are a great thing. However a tiny minority of people are not trustworthy and so we are forced to take away a great things because of that minority.
The ability to change a release is fundamentally incompatible with immutable releases, by definition. You can have one or the other, not both.