On 03/28/2018 02:33 AM, Mike Mestnik wrote: > This is great, there are several issues I had working with GNUNet that > existed entirely because there were no current releases. > > There are a few things to consider above simply having regular releases and > that's handling changes that are incompatible with previous releases. I > would wager this will make LTS releases impracticable or impossible.
Now that's an interesting point to bring up, even though maybe a bit premature. > Things to consider for a new release are API changes and of course protocol > changes. The project ideally would avoid making ABI changes while not > making API changes. I would hope that adopting release goals would make > out of tree applications easy or easier to maintain. Well, there are several issues mixed up in here: 1) protocol changes: I have plans to add some limited protocol versioning in the future, so that may help make backwards-compatible changes -- sometimes but not always. So yes, I still expect "scheduled" breakage in the medium term. In the long term, hopefully versioning will do. 2) API/ABI changes: library versioning already should be applied here, it would be good to improve out tooling to automatically adjust library versions, but in general this should not be a major issue; 3) out-of-tree applications: I don't mind out-of-tree, but ideally our CI should be setup so that we can support them by providing us a means to detect _if_ API changes break them ;-). My 2 cents Christian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
