When software developers update their software to include new configuration options, they have a bunch of options to pick from, of how to handle installs running on the old options.

For example, you could

1.  automatically update config
2.  document a process to gracefully update config
3.  Give human readable errors showing what changes you need to make to conifg
4.  Break the application with a super cryptic error message, and refuse to start until config is wiped with ‘new’ default config.

…

Why do developers keep picking 4? At least 2 horribly complex bits of software in the past year have decided to do that to me, which cost me a few days of head-bashing-against-desk trying to work out what was broken time. 🙁