Oops. I forgot the thread. Sorry about that. Le vendredi 14 juillet 2006, à 19:17, Murray Cumming a écrit : > On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 18:45 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > Hi Murray, > > > > Le jeudi 13 juillet 2006, à 19:24, Murray Cumming a écrit : > > > Since gnome-vfs removed some functions [1], gnome-vfsmm is pretty much > > > forced to remove the API that wraps these functions. I hate to break > > > ABI, but I really doubt that anybody is using this part of gnome-vfsmm, > > > and I think people will thank us for not depending on bonobo. > > > > > > But this is me asking for GNOME release-team permission retrospectively. > > > Any objections? > > > > I'm wondering about three things: > > > > + "This means that you may break API/ABI in the next schedule only if > > you create a new version of the API which is parallel-installable > > with the older version." > > http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleRequirements/PlaformBindings > > Is it possible to do this? > > That would make life difficult for a lot of people, because they'd have > to port overt to the new ABI, waiting for packages to be deployed, etc, > whereas I think the current small ABI break will actually affect nobody > in the real world.
Ok. > > + Forgetting about ABI, is it possible to keep the API (with some > > #define, maybe)? > > I could keep the functions, with empty implementations. I don't know if this is useful, so I'll let this decision to you. But being API-stable sounds better than "we broke ABI and API" ;-) > > + If someone complains about this breaking an app, what will you do? > > Investigate and revert it necessary. Great. So 2/2 for this change. Thanks Murray, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
