Well not having experimental stuff in the main branch would be a change to current practice as there?s lots of stuff today that I would claim is experimental. I would have no objection to such a change, but it might be hard to get others to agree with it.
From: Gregg Reynolds [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 12:47 PM To: Daniel Mihai <Daniel.Mihai at microsoft.com> Cc: uzchoi at samsung.com; Dave Thaler <dthaler at microsoft.com>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us> Subject: Re: [dev] Public and Experimental Public C APIs On Apr 6, 2017 2:09 PM, "Daniel Mihai via iotivity-dev" <iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org>> wrote: Should we start with the following definitions? 1. All C functions included under out/<path_to_IoTivity_SDK>/ are Public APIs 2. All C functions included under out/<path_to_IoTivity_SDK>/experimental/ are Experimental Public APIs wait. the reason we have things like git is because it allows to avoid this sort of thing (among other things). the main branch should _never_ include experimental stuff, IMHO. that's what branches are for. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170406/a1abd591/attachment.html>
