# 1.0 adoption path?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-adoption-path/7922>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Created:** [December 22, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-adoption-path/7922 "2017-12-22T18:19:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 84

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tamas\_Papp](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tamas_papp/32/25949_2.png) [@Tamas\_Papp](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Tamas_Papp)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 10:28am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-adoption-path/7922/84 "2018-07-21T10:28:19Z")

</div>

> [@Liso](#):
>
> backward compatibility is probably hard task for Julia too.

I am not sure about this, but if you mean the contrast between the advice above (use `Compat`) and the [recommendation to drop support for `v0.6`](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ann-introducing-upgradathon-fridays/12047/3), I was wondering about that too.

I think both approaches are viable: if package authors want to support v0.6 for new features, and avoid backporting, then `Compat` is the right solution. OTOH if they don’t, then the version resolution system should take care of it.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-adoption-path/7922)._