On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:41:25 +0200 Stefan Schmidt <ste...@datenfreihafen.org> said:
> Hello. > > On 11/09/14 09:34, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:42:44 +0100 Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> > > said: > > > >> I didn't make much noise when you broke theme API for e19 (for no real > >> reason) because I didn't feel like arguing. But back-porting a breaking > >> change is too much. You essentially screwed over anyone who's tracking > >> stable e18 and efl-1.11.0 (or lower). They'll update only to find out > >> their pager is completely broken, although it's meant to be stable. Same > >> goes with custom made themes. > >> An example of a distro you just broke: Arch. > >> You should have probably just added a configure dependency to e18 saying > >> it only works with efl < 1.11.2 (retarded, but better than what you did). > >> > >> You shouldn't have changed that in e19, you definitely shouldn't have > >> backported it, and you definitely shouldn't have released an e18 > >> "stable" (but broken) version just like that. > >> > >> This again proves how annoying moving the e theme to elm is, but even if > >> the e theme was in tree, this is just a stupid theme-api breaking change. > > i reverted them already on the basis that this is a break as you say - > > people on e18 can't upgrade to efl 1.11.2 or 1.12. > Everything else aside why can't they upgrade to 1.11.2 or 1.12? > The way the patches went it means that e18.9 would depend on 1.11.2 same > as e19. That sounds like a normal dependency raise to me. if they dont upgrade their enlightenment but do upgrade elm then it breaks. this isn't a bugfix... it's a "i want the edc theme source to have clean naming"... and that breaks this as mentiond. > > that alone is reason enough. we need > > to move forward without breaking. if that mans duplicating, so be it. if it > > means its a bit ugly - so be it, but we should avoid breaks -if we > > consciously know they are going to happen. that includes theme. > > I put the release of 1.11.2 and e18.9 on hold until this is sorted out > as the stable branches also contain this changes. > > The underlying problem here is theme API stability. We should have an > agreement about this or we will run into this situation again and again. agreed. i reverted because it isnt a fix - it's not design flaw even in the theme itself - it's simply a naming preference. i agree - the naming is bad and it would be nice to fix, but to break theme just to fix the name - no. do it another way. :) > regards > Stefan Schmidt > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want excitement? > Manually upgrade your production database. > When you want reliability, choose Perforce > Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
