On 04/10/2013 09:50 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> That's unprecedented, we've never released an API "without compatibility
>> promises". We could do that but that's a separate discussion IMO.
> That might be a good idea. How about we introduce a class of public
> APIs, disabled by default (i.e., opt-in towards library consumers),
> which doesn't have any cross-minor-line (1.x <-> 1.y) compatibility
> promises? Or even, "doesn't have any compatibility promises", full
> stop: may change arbitrarily between 1.8.x and 1.8.y.
Look, if we haven't found a decent use for our own API, and we don't have a
third-party client asking specifically for its (well-defined) functionality,
then that tells us the API is unnecessary. The last thing we need is a new
"class" of public APIs with special promises.
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Received on 2013-04-11 14:01:12 CEST