On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 08:54 -0600, Robert P. Goldman wrote: > Anton Vodonosov wrote: > > 19.11.2013, 23:41, "Robert P. Goldman" <rpgold...@sift.info>: > >> it's too radical > > It's not radical, actually my proposal is very similar to yours > > I am not as optimistic about your approach, but it has two huge advantages: > > 1. Unlike my proposal, yours requires no infrastructure support (no > enforcement in ASDF) > 2. Your proposal requires no buy-in > > What I mean is that anyone can experiment with your approach to library > versioning simply by following your guidelines for system construction, > and by "branching" a system when its API changes, instead of trying to > manage the issue with version numbering. > > If you are right, your approach will provide value and convince people > to adopt it. > > I remain pessimistic, and I am not convinced by your argument that > having old library versions is a no-cost solution. For those old > library versions to be of any value, they will have to be maintained, > and bug fixes will have to be backported (while the API remains > constant). My guess is that this won't happen and those old versions > will simply bit rot.
I agree. Since CL library development isn't subsidized by generous companies - like in the Java, Python & Ruby world - the best we can do with limited resources is break an API, maintain the project name and simply require all users to forward-port their code. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
