Ok. Anyone else like to register an opinion? On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Pete Batard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2018.07.08 14:52, Rocky Bernstein wrote: > >> I hope I am reiterating something that is consistent with consensus >> opinion: the next release we go with the compatible ABI and Thomas' >> changes. >> > > Well, I guess I wasn't clear enough then, as I disagree with this approach. > > My vote is to *NOT* apply any multiextent changes until we are in the > process of preparing a new major release, and then go for the much simpler > ABI-breaking proposal (i.e. ditch Thomas' latest proposal and use mine > instead, albeit possibly with Thomas' dynamic allocation changes, which I > don't feel are warranted, as I tried to explain earlier, but that I don't > see much harm in having if we really believe that people are going to use > super large multiextent ISO-9660 on systems where they can't use anything > but shared libcdio libraries). > > In my view, Thomas' proposal is way too disruptive for both libcdio and > its users, whereas, if we simply decide to wait until we feel that we have > a good window for an ABI change, we can get something a lot less painful > for everybody. I have a very strong feeling that, if we decide to go with > integrating Thomas' latest proposal, it will come to bite both us and our > users, and the cost/benefit ratio will not be in anyone's favour. > > So my current vote is against integrating these changes, and instead go > with the much simpler and therefore a lot less disruptive earlier proposal, > that requires an ABI upgrade, even if that means _waiting_ months or years > until we feel that the time is ripe to apply these changes. > > But again, that is just my vote. If there is a majority leaning the other > way, I am certainly not going to oppose the integration of Thomas' latest > proposal. > > Regards, > > /Pete > > >
