At 07:06 PM 4/15/2003, Joe Orton wrote: >On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 05:22:22PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: >> >> IOW, are we ready for 1.0? By my reading of STATUS, we aren't there yet. > >That's the point I was trying to make - I think that whilst HEAD is >constrained to being 0.9.2-compatible-ish, the changes required to make >the API "1.0-worthy" can't be committed. Or they are committed but #if >0'ed out, so they don't get compiled, used or tested; to me a >prerequisite for a "1.0-worthy" API would be that it has been compiled, >used and tested for a reasonable period of time.
It should be as simple as a switch... >I don't understand how APR will ever become 1.0-worthy if HEAD remains >indefinitely constrained to being 0.9.2-compatible. And I don't understand how we can imagine ourselves maintaining a stable API if we are unable to move forward without breaking compatibility. A few developers keep suggesting "we need to break things" Nobody has ever provided a compelling example since the polls API change. And stubbing old functions certainly shouldn't be "getting in the way" of further progress twords a stable 1.0, should it? Or better asked, is it? Would you provide an example of a change that must occur? Everything to eliminate all backwards compatibility thunks can be committed in less than two hours, once we are ready to split 0_9 and 1_0 development. Bill
