Re: Getting libgnome* into shape

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 29Aug2001 03:30PM (+0200), Martin Baulig wrote:
> Michael Meeks <michael ximian com> writes:
> 
> >         Yes I understand that perhaps for Gnome 2.0 we will need to link
> > to libgnome1-compat everywhere - but I hold out high hopes that while we
> > will never ( possible _ever_ cf. your allusion to X ) be able to change
> > the Gnome 2.0 core APIs - we _will_ be able to change the applications on
> > top for Gnome 2.0.1 2.0.2, 2.2, 2.3 etc. to progressively remove any
> > libgnome1-compat staleness.
> > 
> >         Of course - if we glup the whole load of cruft together - we're
> > just scuppered forever; not clever.
> 
> We'll also have the problem that - starting with the libgnome 2.0.0 tarball -
> we need to keep binary compatibility in all subsequent releases. This also
> means that there won't be any chance to remove any of the deprecated methods,
> even if it's not used anywhere anymore. So having them in the core library
> means that they'll have to stay there until GNOME 3.

I think this is a good idea. Even deprecated APIs should only be
broken in API-breaking releases. Given the plan to do one every year
or so, this does not seem like an undue maintainance burden.

No comment on the rest of your mail.

 - Maciej