Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> You have to have a number to discriminate between "break compat" and "not
> break", yet your proposal conflates those. Thus, you can never tell.
>
> Frankly, I'd like to request that you put a LOT more thought into the
> problem before making any kind of proposal or suggestion. I put a ton of
> thought into the rules APR and we are using now, with a lot of great ideas
> incorporated from Havoc Pennington's document. It is somewhat annoying to
> get drive-by suggestions / proposals that don't appear to have the same
> depth of thinking and have some real issues with them.
>
> Stop, think, and then post. I understand that you're possibly seeking to
> build a proposal organically with the other developers on this. I'd still
> ask for a well-thought proposal first, simply to avoid the long churn on
> the list for a topic that (IMO) is pretty well thought thru (with the
> caveat that some people want a "feature version" somewhere).
Fair enough -- that's an accurate description of the process I was
aiming for, but "organic" doesn't have to mean "compost heap".
I do think we have a real problem here. We can't change APIs without
calling it 2.0, yet we've reason to believe we'll want to fix up some
APIs *before* we have enough new features to justify calling it 2.0.
I'll mull on this a bit and see if I can come up with a [good]
proposal to deal with the problem. I had also tossed out another
possibility, saying "Another solution is to just have four numbers?"
But haven't really thought that one through carefully.
In the meantime:
I'd like to know if other people agree we have a problem here,
regardless of the eventual solution.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 9 22:54:01 2004