Thanks Saúl, that sounds like the best approach right now. Reserved fields in particular sounds like a very very good idea. Any forward-looking things you can try to put in place that would allow for both API stability and future extensibility would be a good idea. (Within reason of course, subject to performance expectations etc.)
-Tony On Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:05:09 AM UTC-8, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > I'm sorry we neglected this issue for so long :-( > > Unfortunately 1.0.0 is too close to revisit pipes design. Now, we added > some reserved fields to several structures to make backwards incompatible > ABI changes feasible. > > We can try to add some extra APIs on 1.x for helping Julia and have it > cleaner on 2. Not sure if it will be possible, but we can try! > > Cheers, > On Nov 13, 2014 5:50 AM, "Tony Kelman" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> Just a comment on this. I know you're about to release 1.0.0 soon so I >> probably should have spoken up earlier, it might be too late to do anything >> now. The oldest open PR in libuv's current repo, >> https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/451, is keeping JuliaLang on a >> private fork, getting linux distros a little bit mad at us, and introducing >> some "fun" issues for some adventurous people who are experimenting on >> interoperability between Node (or other languages/libraries using libuv) >> and Julia. It's been awaiting design feedback towards hopefully eventually >> merging some equivalent functionality for almost 2.5 years. >> >> If it's doable in a backwards-compatible way then we're fine, ignore me >> until after your release. I'm concerned that it might not be. Will Julia >> have to wait until libuv 2.0.0 to be able to use unmodified upstream >> sources? I'd like to avoid that if possible. Or maybe you fully expect to >> have 2.0.0 happen sooner rather than later - though it seems the point of >> declaring 1.0.0 is usually that you intend for things to remain stable for >> a while, and cut down on the number of incompatible branches you need to >> maintain. >> >> I believe the most recently rebased version of that patch was in June at >> https://github.com/JuliaLang/libuv/compare/eee4776549f4fc1b941506962dfa6e11a9773976...0d5175d7f5ee86c14e325cc5902f196c2b5f4ee4, >> >> we can rebase it again onto master or the v1.x branch if that would help >> get the review process going, whenever it would be most convenient. >> >> -Tony >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 12:43:34 AM UTC-7, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé >> wrote: >>> >>> On 09/01/2014 08:27 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: >>> > 2014-09-01 19:58 GMT+02:00 Bert Belder <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Can you really promise that no one 1.X.Y libuv version will change >>> >>> anything at API level in a non backwards-compatible manner? really? >>> >> >>> >> I don't really see why this would be an issue; we can always add >>> functions >>> >> if we need to expose additional capabilities. >>> > >>> > Yep. I don't mean adding new features, but keeping the existing ones >>> > in 1.0.0 without any API changes. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> We promised to do so. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Saúl Ibarra Corretgé >>> bettercallsaghul.com >>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "libuv" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libuv. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "libuv" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libuv. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
