On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:00 AM, mattschinkel <[email protected]> wrote: >> Maybe we should leave the libraries as is when the original author >> does not agree and create a new library. At some point the (a) >> benevolent dictator can decide to remove the old lib from the >> distribution if multiple libraries become a burden. > > We need a proper, agreeable way to upgrade libraries. In the case of > this library, it is to comply with current SPI standards. The timer > library improvement I suggested was only a suggestion as there is no > current standard, and there is minimal code change (just add aliases). > Future libraries will suffer the same fate that you can only use one > library that requires a timer. > > Maybe we can add a separate library: Remove the old library after > sufficient testing of the new one (and a certain amount of time has > passed). Can we rename the current library to _old and name the new > one with _new? (maybe there's something nicer then _old). After time > has passed, the _new can be renamed, then say bye to the _old. There > is no reason to keep old code in our up-to-date package. > > There are good reasons to update a library: > 1. Most people agree on the change. > 2. Comply with a standard.
Matt, make a copy of Eur's library and do what ever you want with it, but let the original library as is. Or, create your own library as you wish for your own purposes (as I'm doing) and post it or not (I'm not because of 2). This should be a good behavior before modifying any library which is tested on production (meaning month's or years of tests on different hardware ). Vasile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
