On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 06:56 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote: > Ok, I'll push out a 0.9 RC ASAP. > > On the general topic of API stability, I think the key measure of > "stability" that I would personally like to see (be it 0.9 or 0.10) is not > that we somehow freeze APIs and guarantee to never change them, but rather > that we change them in ways that are backwards compatible. This doesn't > limit us as much as you might think, it just means we need to put in a bit > more work for certain changes, e.g. start using feature macros. The point > of 0.9 was to get as many changes out of the way as possible before > incurring the extra overhead associated with maintaining full backwards > compatibility. > > Once we are satisfied we can maintain this guarantee, I think we should go > to 1.0 rather than sticking with the perpetual 0.x theme.
Big +1. Hopefully the new reactor APIs will hit that mark in the next release or two once people have started to use them and shake out the wrinkles. > > As for newly introduced APIs, I think once we hit 1.0 we probably need to > put some process in place around bringing new APIs into the codebase. > Something that makes it clear to users whether something is at that 1.x > level or not. Another big +1. That is greatly preferable to dragging out the release process while we wait for unreleased API's to "stabilize". --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
