Thanks. We have a history of not doing the obvious. So we need this
discussion and also a formal
decision on a minimal agreement on how to carry out breaking and
non-breaking API changes.
For breaking API changes I suggest to have a
* mandatory bugzilla discussion.
* short description with link to the bugzilla on a designated Wiki-page,
such that we have an overview
about the breaking changes.
For non-breaking API changes we could have a mandatory note on the
cdt-dev list with a link to the
bugzilla.
Markus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mikhail Khodjaiants
*Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 1:09 PM
*To:* CDT General developers list.
*Subject:* RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API
*Importance:* Low
Markus,
If your intention is to make bugzilla discussions on API changes
mandatory then I support it absolutely. In my opinion the rules you
are suggesting are so obvious that no discussion is required.
Mikhail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Schorn, Markus
*Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 11:54 AM
*To:* CDT General developers list.
*Subject:* RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API
Mikhail,
the definition of API is easy, it's the content of all packages that
are exported as public package in
the manifest.mf file. The API tooling will use exactly this
information for performing checks on the API.
If packages are unintentionally exported as public, we need to
remove the public export, which is a
breaking API change.
I did not start and argument about whether API changes are necessary
or not. I want to discuss, how
we can carry out API changes in an organized manner. What's your
opinion on that?
Markus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mikhail
Khodjaiants
*Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 12:12 PM
*To:* CDT General developers list.
*Subject:* RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API
*Importance:* Low
Hi Markus,
On the debugger side we have been following these rules since
the beginning. And I have always opposed to what Doug calls "a
cowboy approach".
But since I have started to look at the other parts of CDT (core
and build) I have had problems to understand what is meant to be
API there and what is not. Some developments seem to be started
but then abandoned. Some old interfaces are marked as deprecated
without mentioning the replacements for it, others are left
without deprecation. In some cases I couldn't understand why a
class or an interface was implemented as public or internal. It
seems that people who work closely with core (and possibly
build) have an understanding of what is public but it is not
obvious for outsiders like myself.
My opinion is: a serious cleanup is required which may cause an
API breakage. Not sure if we have resources for it though :(
Regards,
Mikhail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Schorn, Markus
*Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 10:17 AM
*To:* CDT General developers list.
*Subject:* [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API
Hi committers,
For two reasons, I am missing a discussion about the planned
changes to the API.
* Even if we deliver CDT 6.0 and thus do break API, we should be
nice to our clients and keep
the changes to the API minimal. Therefore an API change needs
some justification. In many cases
it is possible to provide a fix that only extends, but does
not break API.
* A single committer is usually not aware of all the use-cases
for an API and therefore an API change
should be discussed before it is carried out.
Basically I would like to know about the planned API changes,
but I also think that we should take this
further by making it mandatory to discuss a breaking change to
AP on bugzilla, first. It is also a good
habit to inform committers about non-breaking extensions to API.
Please share your opinion,
Markus.
--
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments
are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do
not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any
purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
