On 2005.02.10, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 09 February 2005 23:49, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
>
> > If you don't believe that I truly feel this way, then put me to the
> > test. Start making changes. Start committing code.
>
> I DID. See ChangeLog: [...]
> This is your answer:
I wrote this to the list on Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:24:01 -0400:
TclX keyed list changes in HEAD
http://listserv.aol.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0406&L=aolserver&P=15467
| Zoran implemented some recent changes to TclX keyed lists in CVS
| HEAD which changed the C API, which broke at least some code at
| AOL which was still using the old C API.
|
| Rather than a wholesale back-out of the changes, I'd like to
| discuss two things:
|
| 1) Should changes that break backwards compatibility be allowed
| between minor revisions (i.e., 4.0 -> 4.1) or should they be
| limited to major releases only (i.e., 4.x -> 5.x).
|
| 2) Can we quickly implement some backwards compatibility for the
| TclX keyed list C API so that existing C code won't need to be
| modified/updated to use Zoran's new C API? What's the best way to
| do this? Can it be done through #define's? Or thin wrapper C procs
| that call the new C procs? Or, can we simply rename Zoran's new C
| procs to the old names to preserve compatibility?
At one point, Zoran replied:
http://listserv.aol.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0406&L=aolserver&P=16550
| A wholesale back-out of the changes seems like a very desperate
| step, hm? Since the CVS head is the development branch, changes
| to it should be allowed. Or not? Besides, head should not be used
| for any productive environment, AFAIK. If the checkin policy on
| head should be that rigorous, then we'll advance very, very
| slowly, which is bad, isn't it?
In my original message, I clearly said "rather than" -- which meant, I
wanted to avoid a wholesale back-out of the changes, so I presented two
options that I thought we could consider. We quickly discussed #2, you
went ahead and added the necessary C API for backwards compatibility,
and the issue was quickly resolved. This worked out exactly the way I
hoped these kinds of issues can be resolved.
I think my approach then was exactly what I reiterated recently in the
very message you replied to:
http://listserv.aol.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0502&L=aolserver&P=18838
So, what's the problem? I think my behavior has been consistent with my
messaging. Am I deluding myself? I'd like to think that I'm not, but
it's hard to judge your own self-image from inside your own head ...
-- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
"He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject:
field of your email blank.
