Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...> writes: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Keith Packard <keithp@...> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:34:51 -0400, Alex Deucher > <alexdeucher@...> wrote: > > > >> The number of ABI breaks is minimal (usually 1 per > >> xserver) and those can usually be fixed within a day or so of the > >> breakage. > > > > We don't get ABI changes because they're nearly impossible to handle. > > > >> I don't rebuild the xserver nearly as often as I rebuild > >> the ddx so it would mean more work to keep up with the xserver changes > >> on a regular basis. > > > > On the plus side, we'd get a whole lot more coverage of new X server > > betas before release... > > True, but on the other hand, we'd probably get less testing against > random older X servers. > > Alex > _______________________________________________ > xorg-devel@...: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel > >
You can deal with ABI evolution via a controlled process of versioning, but the people working out-of-tree have to *want* to evolve with you. If they don't, they'll fall off, just not instantly! I'm actually of the opinion that it's more valuable for in-tree work, when the developers are only likely to be a bit out of synch with each other. A lightweight description of mutating an ABI is in the Paul Stachour ACM article at http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/11/48444-you-dont-know-jack-about-software-maintenance/fulltext --dave (I was his editor) c-b _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
