Re: gir stability

[Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com>]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Ryan Lortie <desrt desrt ca> wrote:

>
> What makes this particular incident of note is that popup_for_device()
> existed in Gtk 3.2 and was bound as such.  Python applications[1]
> started using it, and then, with this commit, it disappeared.
>
> We need to figure out what our story is with respect to annotations.
> 'Rename to:' is an extreme example (since an entire function, as named,
> disappears) but we can easily cause problems just as serious with
> changes that look a lot more innocent (like changing array length
> parameters or such).  We can even break vala bindings with the
> introduction of an (allow none).

Thanks for raising the issue. In this particular case, the only reason
that popup_for_device was added in the first place was to have a
bindable version of popup - the 'rename to' annotation should really
have been there from the beginning. But its a fair question to ask -
at what point do we stop considering the introspected bindings a
work-in-progress and treat annotations as equally part of the stable
api ? Sounds like your take is that the answer has to be 'now'...