Re: profterm's eel usage ...

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:34:51AM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 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.
The jump to gnome2 has pared out quite a bit.
> 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.
This seems like a reasonable proposal.  Do we have a consensus to
bless it ?  Once accepted we can form a maintenance quorum to
discuss specifics.

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