Re: profterm's eel usage ...

Sander Vesik <sv117949 ireland sun com> writes: 
> > And a ground guideline has to be that we are really serious about "no
> > compat guarantees" - if something turns out to be wrong, then it comes
> > out or gets changed, and people have to fix their apps.
> > 
> The "being really serious about no compat guarantees" only works if the
> maintainers are really serious about "will include in the library",
> because otherwise you are back at gal...

GAL has the opposite policy AFAIK - it rarely removes things.

My proposal is that to add a feature to the proto lib the "sponsoring
platform lib maintainer" has to feel fairly confident that they want
something along the lines of that feature in their stable library.

But, this is a prototype library because it contains prototypes we
aren't sure about. So if something turns out in practice to be a bad
idea, then we nuke it or change it. Apps can then cut-and-paste it if
they want to continue to use it.

If you try to make your proto library stable, no one will feel
comfortable using it for prototype-quality code.

There are inevitable tradeoffs here... to me the a big win is to avoid
"unmaintainable dumping ground syndrome" by ensuring that everything
in the proto lib is on its way into a real lib.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]