On Monday March 23, 2009 07:29:54 Jorge Vargas wrote: > Please explain me why this is API change? > <snip> > please tell me how the calling code changes from A to B ? It doesn't! > so please do not say that is an api change, it isn't.
I repeat: If you add two public modules and two public functions, then you're changing the API. I'd say it's pretty obvious. You seem to believe that API change == backwards-incompatible change, and you'd be wrong. You can make backwards compatible changes in the API -- for example, the one we're talking about. Nobody but you is talking about backwards incompatibility. Of course that function can be called as usual, it's backwards compatible! So what? Who's said it's backwards incompatible? Nobody. My point is that it's an API change and that always outdates text written relying on the part of the API that changed. Period. I didn't say that function has to be called differently since that change. > The only think that could be affected by that change is that if you > told someone to edit websetup.py instead of websetup. Why? Because it's an API change! > So why not look for a mid ground instead of killing the feature? make > it back into a single websetup.py and let it be split into 2 functions > all in the same file, everyone is happy, then make it a module for 2.1 > > It seems to me everyone saw a bunch of files be moved in > http://trac.turbogears.org/changeset/6513 and didn't realize how > trivial is that. > > Now lets see the feature freeze was supposed to be feb-28 (from ML > archives) yet if you look at > http://trac.turbogears.org/log/projects/tg.devtools/trunk/devtools/template >s, we'll have to remove > > - the move of the ModelTest class (which I didn't because we where in > api freeze) > - all the new model tests > - all the new auth tests For your information, those three items were taken as *blocker* *issues* and I had *explicit* *permission* to implement them right away. > so what's it going to be are we willing to "lose" all the last changes Will you continue referring to moving that enhancement to 2.1 as a "lost" or "discard"? > (and confuse everyone running trunk) Confuse everybody running trunk? Here and in every single project it's more than explicit that if you use the mainline development, you'd be doing it at your own risk. So that's not a reason to be taken into account. > or we are going to look for a solution? I think that's what we're doing. Cheers. -- Gustavo Narea <xri://=Gustavo>. | Tech blog: =Gustavo/(+blog)/tech ~ About me: =Gustavo/about | --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
