Re: Removing (yes) unloved API/ABI from gnome-vfsmm

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Oops. I forgot the thread. Sorry about that.

Le vendredi 14 juillet 2006, à 19:17, Murray Cumming a écrit :
> On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 18:45 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Hi Murray,
> > 
> > Le jeudi 13 juillet 2006, à 19:24, Murray Cumming a écrit :
> > > Since gnome-vfs removed some functions [1], gnome-vfsmm is pretty much
> > > forced to remove the API that wraps these functions. I hate to break
> > > ABI, but I really doubt that anybody is using this part of gnome-vfsmm,
> > > and I think people will thank us for not depending on bonobo.
> > > 
> > > But this is me asking for GNOME release-team permission retrospectively.
> > > Any objections?
> > 
> > I'm wondering about three things:
> > 
> >  + "This means that you may break API/ABI in the next schedule only if
> >     you create a new version of the API which is parallel-installable
> >     with the older version."
> >    http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleRequirements/PlaformBindings
> >    Is it possible to do this?
> 
> That would make life difficult for a lot of people, because they'd have
> to port overt to the new ABI, waiting for packages to be deployed, etc,
> whereas I think the current small ABI break will actually affect nobody
> in the real world.

Ok.

> >  + Forgetting about ABI, is it possible to keep the API (with some
> >    #define, maybe)?
> 
> I could keep the functions, with empty implementations.

I don't know if this is useful, so I'll let this decision to you. But
being API-stable sounds better than "we broke ABI and API" ;-)

> >  + If someone complains about this breaking an app, what will you do?
> 
> Investigate and revert it necessary.

Great. So 2/2 for this change.

Thanks Murray,

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.