On 04/10/2013 09:50 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> That's unprecedented, we've never released an API "without compatibility >> promises". We could do that but that's a separate discussion IMO. > > That might be a good idea. How about we introduce a class of public > APIs, disabled by default (i.e., opt-in towards library consumers), > which doesn't have any cross-minor-line (1.x <-> 1.y) compatibility > promises? Or even, "doesn't have any compatibility promises", full > stop: may change arbitrarily between 1.8.x and 1.8.y.
-1 Look, if we haven't found a decent use for our own API, and we don't have a third-party client asking specifically for its (well-defined) functionality, then that tells us the API is unnecessary. The last thing we need is a new "class" of public APIs with special promises. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
